3 ms·
I don't find it appealing. The surface version of the logo, especially, bothers me; it feels off-balance due to the size of the geometric block and its placemen
by rndmize 14y ago
I don't find it appealing. The surface version of the logo, especially, bothers me; it feels off-balance due to the size of the geometric block and its placement.
Personal issues with the design aside, I also don't think the overall idea is any good. Microsoft as a whole doesn't need to be futuristic or hip or apple-ish. For its corporate customers especially, I think this would be counter-productive. Instead, they should take Microsoft Research and really DO SOMETHING with it. Such as attaching an accelerator of sorts, where small groups of entrepreneurs/innovators can take something MS Research has developed and see if they can make a marketable product out of it.
Surface really feels like the case in point here - they're how many years behind in finally releasing something to the consumer market? I remember reading that the cool desk in the The Island (2005, two years prior to the iPhone) was a MS research surface prototype or something; and yet it took them another four years to get a product out, and they priced it at 10k and sold it to phone retailers. Phone retailers! What the actual fuck?! Today, all of that seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of tablets. It feels like MS is following the TSA model - wait until something big happens, then do something about it, instead of the other way around.
Anyway, if MS Research got a new logo that could be attached to semi-independent MS-funded experimental projects aimed at getting something to market, I could see a futuristic/high-tech branding being a useful thing to have. For MS in general, I don't.
- justincormack 14y agoSurface was not a real product. Sure they sold it for 10k but that was cost. It got a Microsoft cool product into design agencies. No phone retailers were harmed...