Design isn't about just being radical and experimental (which has a place). Good designers know when to use these features while obeying the over arching rule o

Design isn't about just being radical and experimental (which has a place). Good designers know when to use these features while obeying the over arching rule of design: Don't just include elements because you fancy them (or the idea of them) - They must work completely on their own merits. As an experiment this is interesting, as a proposition it's very poor, it's design-poor. This is subjective, but in my view it's both too abstract and unruly for microsoft and fails the continuity test. Unstructured logos need careful examination, this is more experimental than logical. Also Deutsche bank has a very similar logo which is ill-advised in general. With regard to the new microsoft logo type this is visually imbalanced, particularly with the use of various clashing typographic styles. For example the x-height limited 'i' is at odds with the "ft" ligature which ascends above the x-height. Letter terminals are square, then the 't' on the end suddenly has two angled terminals which directly contradict the 'f' it's attached to. It doesn't come across as flair, it comes across as trying to add interest where there is none. Also the type in general is poor, it's variously weighted strokes present a mottled "grey area" and the surrounding "white space" is unnatural to read.