7 ms·

Google is changing its logo

84 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
valhallarecords 13y ago
Hm, I doubt this is a new logo. The bevelled logo is the one used in digital media. The flat logo is the one used in print and has been in use for a while. For example: https://cloud.google.com/files/KhanAcademy.pdf https://cloud.google.com/files/KhanAcademy.pdf
AndrewDucker 13y ago
Personally I prefer the old one - I don't find it to be garish or over the top, and I find the new one somewhat lifeless.
jbrooksuk 13y ago
Why is flat "modern"? I don't understand it. I'm not criticizing it, I think it looks neat, but I just can't understand why, after all this time we struggled to make shadows, rounded corners etc, everything is just flat.
- user24 13y ago
  I'm not defending or attacking, but I think the idea is that: Computer UI designs in the past tried to make the user more comfortable by mimicing the textured, three dimensional environment that humans exist in. Look around; every object you interact with outside the computer is shadowy, rounded, bevelled and textured. The current thinking is that computer UI should not need those real-world cues in order for users to feel at home in the digital environment. See also; skeuomorphism
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Because it can afford to be now. There was a time where most people didn't know how to operate a computer. We had to pull all the stops out to make computer use possible or easier for them - skeumorphism is one of the things that came out of that. We hoped that by emulating real-world objects, both in detail (see: iCal) or in more abstract terms (see: "3D" buttons). Whether or not this ever really helped usability is a matter of debate. In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now. The general UI elements and their rules - links, buttons, sliders, etc, are all known to just about everyone. At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability. That and it's just the style. Why are cars today more beveled and sharper-edged than cars of the 90s? Whatever happened to the big hair of the 80s?
  - davidw 13y ago
    > In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now Not in the world I inhabit. Tons of people have serious trouble doing things with computers. I think the flat stuff is ridiculous.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    This is the same story I've heard everywhere, but have there actually been usability studies to show that flat buttons are somehow more user-friendly than 3D buttons? It seems like most people's gripes are with the fact that skeuomorphism supposedly led to designs like Apple's Podcast and Find My Friends apps. I'd argue, though, that those app designs didn't suck because of skeuomorphism; they sucked because they were overdone to the point of not relating to reality at all anymore. No one uses tape decks anymore, so clearly that was a paradigm that fell flat completely, and Find My Friends, instead of going for a radar look or something similar, decided to go for an overly-puffy address book-type thing that just looked awful and cluttered. My problem is now that no button is safe without being criticized for looking clickable, or in other words, exactly like every other div and text field on the page.
    - azernik 13y ago
      I don't see an argument that flat is more user-friendly - just that it's not less user-friendly for people who are familiar with GUIs, and so now we (as UI designers/programmers) can use them without actual drops in usability.
  - derefr 13y ago
    I agree with "because it can afford to be now," but in a different sense. It's fashionable to be fat when food is scarce, and thin when food is abundant. It's fashionable to be pale-skinned when the lower-class works outdoors, and tanned when they work in offices. And it's fashionable to be shiny and realistic when it's a hard effect to implement, and flat when shiny realism is one library-call away.
  - tod222 13y ago
    > At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability. Do you have any data to back up your opinion? My anecdotal experience with unsophisticated users is that Google's new flat design has been a usability disaster. People who had been capable users of the old gmail design had difficulty finding the same functionality in the new design. There's a strong tendency for people who live and breath technology to think that it is "intuitive" for everyone. It's not, and such an attitude merely reflects a lack of empathy for people who don't find computer use natural and easy.
- dmbass 13y ago
  All those effects still have a place in a "flat" design. They're just more subtle and you actually have to go look for them instead of being distracted by them. Their main purpose is to create affordance for UI elements. For example, the new Google has a very subtle gradient from light to dark; so while you say it's "flat" there is actually simulated light being cast from a third dimension. This helps it stand out on (appear on top of) a uniform background.
- SifJar 13y ago
  In general, "minimalist" design seems to be quite popular these days (not just in technology) and "flat" is pretty minimal. Maybe that's something to do with it?
- driverdan 13y ago
  Because flat is the current design fad and all the cool kids need to follow the fads.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Because shadows and corners are unneeded. We needed to root the web experience into something familiar. So buttons had to be big round and push-able and voluminous. The same way it is with current weird looking save and telephone icons (floppy and classic phone). Currently there are kids clicking icon of a 3 1/2 inch floppy that haven't been born the last time one of those was used outside the corporate and government depths.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    GUI's used to be flat. Windows up to 3.1. AmigaOS up to 2.0. MacOS. TOS. Athena widget set etc. They were all flat, and to a certain extent colourless. We added bevels and colour because we could, and because it stood out against the competition, and it was fresh and new. And then we piled on the bling next time around because the entire competition had beveled, colourful UI's. And it carried over onto the web, because we could and were already using it everywhere else. And now it's flat that is fresh and new again. This is trends and fashion much more than it has anything to do with familiarity and usability.
    - kpreid 13y ago
      The old flat had border lines (usually black lines between light-colored backgrounds). The new flat uses differences between background colors to mark the same sorts of boundaries. I think this makes enough difference that it's worth considering them distinct.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    Colors and decorations are usually unneeded too but flat design uses them.
- vidarh 13y ago
  It "modern" because we've spent all this time struggling to make shadows, rounded corners etc. to the extent that now everyone can do it reasonably well, so to be different and fresh and stand out you now need to do something else. Give it a year or two, and you'll see the the trends shift yet again.
- Coincoin 13y ago
  What looks modern is very often a cycle between "because we have the technology to do it" and "because we have the technology to not do it anymore". We arrived at a point where putting more shadows, glitter, transparency effects and particles is no longer hard, so it no longer looks modern. The only solution to go forward is to remove all that fluff in a statement saying: "Our tech is so good we don't even need to show it anymore". The same applies to building materials in design. 40 Years ago, concrete was all the craze and the material of the future. We would use that shit on everything. Today, a building made only of concrete looks passé, but I'm sure it will come back with a vengeance once we find out how to make it lighter/color-changing/glow-in-the-dark or something stupid like this.
- kepano 13y ago
  In design the word "modern" has a specific meaning. Modernism is a movement, a school of thought that emerged in the early 20th century with Bauhaus and designers such as Mies van der Rohe who famously said "Less is more". It's a rejection of ornamentation and unnecessary elements. It embraces honesty for the medium and materials, and the idea that "form follows function". The reason that flat design is modern is because it rejects the use of shadows, bevels, glossy textures because these are decorations that attempt to make a digital interface look like something it is not (i.e. real objects in the real world).
  - samatman 13y ago
    This is the only correct answer in this subthread. "Modern" is a look, not a time.
  - lake99 13y ago
    Oh god! If this "modern" turns out to be just a passing trend, I'd hate to see the advent of post-modernism in UI design :)
    - kepano 13y ago
      One could make the argument that Forstall's iOS was post-modern. The choice of using real-word textures such as leather and notepaper were not just about helping novice computer users, they also seemed like an aesthetic choice, decorative features along the lines of Robert Venturi's architecture. I think Forstall might have agreed with him that "less is a bore".
  - azernik 13y ago
    Just to tag along - I was surprised when I first saw early 1920s typographic/graphic design (esp. book covers) just how closely the newer "flat" UIs resemble that period's style. EDIT: As an example, here's a 1925 German journal cover that would look only slightly out of place in Windows 8: http://typographyhistory.tumblr.com/post/871290549/typographische-mitteilungen-october-1925-special http://typographyhistory.tumblr.com/post/871290549/typograph...
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Why is flat "modern"? I don't understand it. Emm, exactly because for years we used shadows, 3d look and stuff? So, anything that comes after that, is "modern" (it's a new look, that replaces the previous standard look). It's like fashion. There's nothing inherently modern in "flat" -- in 5-10 years when ornamental will make a comeback, it will be considered "modern".
  - gbog 13y ago
    Here in HN we can elevate ourselves above these looped fashion styles. A way to do that is to find something that is old but not old-fashioned, or something that is new but not modernist. Examples abund in the domains of cars, music, book and I'd prefer not to drop names. But I can't seem to be able to find one single not-old-nor-new design in the domain of websites. Maybe HN is (or it is an old-baby)? Google could have been that: a specific flavor that is not outdated or trendy, but with this flat thing the last thread of hope has gone. Oh, one thing that is old-fashioned and very modern at the same time: the Terminal! Lovely friend, you was designed for 1bit/s teletypes, and you still the fastest and most reliable friend in all what I do to my computer. Hope you never dies. Shameless hook: I consider douban.com, where I work (beware: Chinese), to be somewhat not modernist nor old-fashioned, in a way.
- twistedpair 13y ago
  Because of the Hawthorne Effect. Change for the sake of change. You can't get complacent now. We need the continued product refresh cycles and relevancy of new trends.
iQuercus 13y ago
The old logo, warts and all is a classic by now. It's actually surprisingly timeless. In one word it's playful. I wouldn't change it just to follow the latest design trend.
- binxbolling 13y ago
  Which of the old logos are you referring to?
  - iQuercus 13y ago
    The one shown in the article, which has been in use since 2010 I believe?
daGrevis 13y ago
It's about time. Old logo reminds me of times when people used tables to design web-pages.
phorese 13y ago
So Google becomes flat and keeps its serifs, while Yahoo! unflattens itself, but loses the serifs. Huh.
wtvanhest 13y ago
I'm surprised that it didn't take 30 seconds to load while missing letters.
jpswade 13y ago
This is speculation at best. We see this kind of news every time Google changes their favicon. http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/googles-new-favicon.html http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/googles-new-favicon...
marknutter 13y ago
The old logo is what most first time photoshop users would end up with shortly after discovering the bevel feature. It's about time they updated it.
- petercooper 13y ago
  It's funny how tastes shift. This whole "flat" look that's currently in would have looked babyish in the tech space 10+ years ago. And so it goes with bevels, shadows, and all the rest.. looks silly to us now but was de rigeur back then! :-) Of course, things will continue to shift and today's trendiest looks will seem ridiculous in 2023..
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    In 2023 all the hipsters will use B&W design. "You use colors? OMG, that looks like it was designed in 2010."
    - nathell 13y ago
      There is a precedent already: http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~wolinski/acfi.html http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~wolinski/acfi.html
    - lucaspiller 13y ago
      Just wait. Times New Roman is coming back...
    - steven777400 13y ago
      2023? Visual Studio switched to largely B&W icons in its 2012 release. Some of the websites that have been linked from HN as prime examples of flat design also used the B&W icon motif (I don't recall which ones specifically though).
      - Pxtl 13y ago
        Ick, don't remind me. Looking at the source control browser in VS2012 makes my eyes want to bleed.
howlett 13y ago
Windows logo got flat before it was cool.
oulipian 13y ago
The new one is not completely flat, there's some really subtle shading there. I like it a lot. More elegant.
gphil 13y ago
Whether or not Google is about to flatten their logo, it's worth noting that Yahoo just un-flattened theirs. It's also not inconceivable that one of the reasons Yahoo did this was to appear more Google-like.
- willismichael 13y ago
  Makes me think of Dr. Suess's story "The Sneetches": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Storie...
ozh 13y ago
If you look closely, it's not flat. There's a very thin bevel. It's symptomatic to me of Google's inability to make up their mind in the design department: UI different across products, UX disaster when they introduce discrepancies between products, not able to decide whether their logo is flat or bevel.... Really, Google is good at doing nerd stuff, but they should just outsource everything regarding design.
- Keyframe 13y ago
  If you look closely, it's not flat. There's a very thin bevel. I can't see it, where? I can see a gradient though. It's slick, font isn't though.
  - ozh 13y ago
    thin gradient, or bevel, or shadow, not sure how you want to name that. The thing is, it's not flat.
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      In that case, iOS 7 isn't flat either
  - frogpelt 13y ago
    @ozh: thin gradient, or bevel, or shadow The terms are definitely not interchangeable.
- frogpelt 13y ago
  This probably more of a reflection on the person/people at the top. Apple did everything one way: Steve Jobs' way. Since his departure, I have seen less unified focus from Apple. Google's MO almost from the beginning has been sort of the opposite--to try everything at least once and have fun doing it. This spills over into some of their design philosophies too, I would think.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  If you look closely at all flat design, it's not flat. There's almost always a very thin bevel. There are several reasons for this: 1. it attempts to address the issue of flat UIs being absolute shite for UX. 2. it looks more interesting on a high definition screen. 3. it adds a finishing touch that sets it slightly apart from plain text.
wslh 13y ago
The world is flat ;-)
antonpug 13y ago
Interesting. Yahoo ditches flat for 3D. Google ditches 3D for flat. The result? Neither have good logos.
- cnlwsu 13y ago
  Yahoo's change was more the CEO deciding that she can redo it in a weekend. I would think any change from Google would go through a UX/UI design team and a ton of redundant meetings... not sure which is worse.
  - antonpug 13y ago
    I don't think they went through any UX team here. Google needs a new face, a new logo. The colorful serif-font logo looks very childish and 90's.
    - delinka 13y ago
      "Googol" is a word invented by a child. "Google" is a homophone of this word. How to do you give the logo a less-childish treatment while maintaining a name that is also childish?
recycleme 13y ago
This modern look seems to typically have a slight gradient as well.
Yuioup 13y ago
Yahoo! What a great logo!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
programminggeek 13y ago
I'm not sure that taking the shadows out of their logo is actually changing it. Google uses flat logos on t-shirts and elsewhere I'm sure. Imagine a black t-shirt with a white google logo on it. Flattening a logo is something you might do in the context of usage, so I just don't know why flatening it for their default (which matches a lot of their existing design anyway), is seen as a big deal.
reustle 13y ago
So essentially Marissa took the bevel along with her from Google to Yahoo?
olog-hai 13y ago
Why link to #p3? Let me read the post from the top without making me scroll up.
martin-adams 13y ago
Maybe the new logo compresses better and Google are tightening it's belts.
Andrex 13y ago
They use this one in print materials. http://deployment.googleapps.com/Home/user-resources/google-icons-and-logos http://deployment.googleapps.com/Home/user-resources/google-... But if they're using it in Android apps it may point to more flattenification in KitKat/future releases. However, that doesn't seem to be the case: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710634/redesigned-google-logo-found-in-chrome-for-android-beta http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710634/redesigned-google-l... > Update: A person familiar with Google's branding tells The Verge that this is not a replacement for the company's traditional logo. Instead, the flatter design is used in instances where the beveled logo may not display well — such as on printed banners or other corporate use cases. The logo in question has been pulled from where it first appeared previously in Chrome for Android, signaling that the company quickly realized its mistake. Suffice it to say, the Google logo you know and love isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Case closed.
DanBC 13y ago
> but Joshua Stewart figured out that just by incrementing the number to 5 or 6 Wait what, people still do this and admit to it?
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  Yeah, somebody needs to lock this criminal Joshua Stewart up. Maybe he can share a cell with weev.
dbecker 13y ago
this looks about a million times better than the current logo Even accepting that this is hyperbole, I think it reflects a disconnect between design aficionados and normal users. The logos are pretty similar, and I'm skeptical that most people would have a preference either way.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Indeed... I find the second much harder to differentiate from the background. Especially the yellow o.
crististm 13y ago
"...recent Yahoo disaster..." - thats what you get when focus-groups drive your design.
harrytuttle 13y ago
Well they probably save several terabytes a year with the new logo!
gjm11 13y ago
The actual Ars Technica headline begins (now, at least; perhaps it's changed) "Is Google changing its logo?", and recent updates to the article suggest that, as per Betteridge, the answer is "no, probably not".
Havoc 13y ago
Doesn't exactly shout "rapid technological progress".
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
It’s not a new logo. It’s not even a different logo: the glyph shapes are exactly the same in both versions, it just has different shading for when it needs to be displayed small. Apple has been known to try different shading and color for its logo, but that doesn’t mean that whenever they do so, they’ve adopted a new logo.
mydpy 13y ago
The title of this article, as posted to Hacker News, is "Google is changing its logo." The title of the article linked to by this post is "Is Google revamping its logo?". This is a significant difference.
- clauretano 13y ago
  Especially since the answer, as always, is no.
matt__rose 13y ago
This is funny HN headline: google is changing its logo Source Headline: Is google changing its logo? Source conclusion: No, google is not changing its logo.
- adambard 13y ago
  If the answer was "yes", they'd have no need to make the headline a question.
wil421 13y ago
If they really are changing their main logo to match that one, I wonder if they are doing it because Yahoo just changed their logo. Maybe Google is trying to compete with Marissa Meyer and her new strategies at Yahoo. Edit: Flat is so hot right now.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

84 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Hm, I doubt this is a new logo. The bevelled logo is the one used in digital media. The flat logo is the one used in print and has been in use for a while. For example: https://cloud.google.com/files/KhanAcademy.pdf https://cloud.google.com/files/KhanAcademy.pdf

AndrewDucker 13y ago

Personally I prefer the old one - I don't find it to be garish or over the top, and I find the new one somewhat lifeless.

jbrooksuk 13y ago

Why is flat "modern"? I don't understand it. I'm not criticizing it, I think it looks neat, but I just can't understand why, after all this time we struggled to make shadows, rounded corners etc, everything is just flat.

user24 13y ago
I'm not defending or attacking, but I think the idea is that: Computer UI designs in the past tried to make the user more comfortable by mimicing the textured, three dimensional environment that humans exist in. Look around; every object you interact with outside the computer is shadowy, rounded, bevelled and textured. The current thinking is that computer UI should not need those real-world cues in order for users to feel at home in the digital environment. See also; skeuomorphism
potatolicious 13y ago
Because it can afford to be now. There was a time where most people didn't know how to operate a computer. We had to pull all the stops out to make computer use possible or easier for them - skeumorphism is one of the things that came out of that. We hoped that by emulating real-world objects, both in detail (see: iCal) or in more abstract terms (see: "3D" buttons). Whether or not this ever really helped usability is a matter of debate. In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now. The general UI elements and their rules - links, buttons, sliders, etc, are all known to just about everyone. At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability. That and it's just the style. Why are cars today more beveled and sharper-edged than cars of the 90s? Whatever happened to the big hair of the 80s?
- davidw 13y ago
  > In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now Not in the world I inhabit. Tons of people have serious trouble doing things with computers. I think the flat stuff is ridiculous.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  This is the same story I've heard everywhere, but have there actually been usability studies to show that flat buttons are somehow more user-friendly than 3D buttons? It seems like most people's gripes are with the fact that skeuomorphism supposedly led to designs like Apple's Podcast and Find My Friends apps. I'd argue, though, that those app designs didn't suck because of skeuomorphism; they sucked because they were overdone to the point of not relating to reality at all anymore. No one uses tape decks anymore, so clearly that was a paradigm that fell flat completely, and Find My Friends, instead of going for a radar look or something similar, decided to go for an overly-puffy address book-type thing that just looked awful and cluttered. My problem is now that no button is safe without being criticized for looking clickable, or in other words, exactly like every other div and text field on the page.
  - azernik 13y ago
    I don't see an argument that flat is more user-friendly - just that it's not less user-friendly for people who are familiar with GUIs, and so now we (as UI designers/programmers) can use them without actual drops in usability.
- derefr 13y ago
  I agree with "because it can afford to be now," but in a different sense. It's fashionable to be fat when food is scarce, and thin when food is abundant. It's fashionable to be pale-skinned when the lower-class works outdoors, and tanned when they work in offices. And it's fashionable to be shiny and realistic when it's a hard effect to implement, and flat when shiny realism is one library-call away.
- tod222 13y ago
  > At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability. Do you have any data to back up your opinion? My anecdotal experience with unsophisticated users is that Google's new flat design has been a usability disaster. People who had been capable users of the old gmail design had difficulty finding the same functionality in the new design. There's a strong tendency for people who live and breath technology to think that it is "intuitive" for everyone. It's not, and such an attitude merely reflects a lack of empathy for people who don't find computer use natural and easy.
dmbass 13y ago
All those effects still have a place in a "flat" design. They're just more subtle and you actually have to go look for them instead of being distracted by them. Their main purpose is to create affordance for UI elements. For example, the new Google has a very subtle gradient from light to dark; so while you say it's "flat" there is actually simulated light being cast from a third dimension. This helps it stand out on (appear on top of) a uniform background.
SifJar 13y ago
In general, "minimalist" design seems to be quite popular these days (not just in technology) and "flat" is pretty minimal. Maybe that's something to do with it?
driverdan 13y ago
Because flat is the current design fad and all the cool kids need to follow the fads.
venomsnake 13y ago
Because shadows and corners are unneeded. We needed to root the web experience into something familiar. So buttons had to be big round and push-able and voluminous. The same way it is with current weird looking save and telephone icons (floppy and classic phone). Currently there are kids clicking icon of a 3 1/2 inch floppy that haven't been born the last time one of those was used outside the corporate and government depths.
- vidarh 13y ago
  GUI's used to be flat. Windows up to 3.1. AmigaOS up to 2.0. MacOS. TOS. Athena widget set etc. They were all flat, and to a certain extent colourless. We added bevels and colour because we could, and because it stood out against the competition, and it was fresh and new. And then we piled on the bling next time around because the entire competition had beveled, colourful UI's. And it carried over onto the web, because we could and were already using it everywhere else. And now it's flat that is fresh and new again. This is trends and fashion much more than it has anything to do with familiarity and usability.
  - kpreid 13y ago
    The old flat had border lines (usually black lines between light-colored backgrounds). The new flat uses differences between background colors to mark the same sorts of boundaries. I think this makes enough difference that it's worth considering them distinct.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  Colors and decorations are usually unneeded too but flat design uses them.
vidarh 13y ago
It "modern" because we've spent all this time struggling to make shadows, rounded corners etc. to the extent that now everyone can do it reasonably well, so to be different and fresh and stand out you now need to do something else. Give it a year or two, and you'll see the the trends shift yet again.
Coincoin 13y ago
What looks modern is very often a cycle between "because we have the technology to do it" and "because we have the technology to not do it anymore". We arrived at a point where putting more shadows, glitter, transparency effects and particles is no longer hard, so it no longer looks modern. The only solution to go forward is to remove all that fluff in a statement saying: "Our tech is so good we don't even need to show it anymore". The same applies to building materials in design. 40 Years ago, concrete was all the craze and the material of the future. We would use that shit on everything. Today, a building made only of concrete looks passé, but I'm sure it will come back with a vengeance once we find out how to make it lighter/color-changing/glow-in-the-dark or something stupid like this.
kepano 13y ago
In design the word "modern" has a specific meaning. Modernism is a movement, a school of thought that emerged in the early 20th century with Bauhaus and designers such as Mies van der Rohe who famously said "Less is more". It's a rejection of ornamentation and unnecessary elements. It embraces honesty for the medium and materials, and the idea that "form follows function". The reason that flat design is modern is because it rejects the use of shadows, bevels, glossy textures because these are decorations that attempt to make a digital interface look like something it is not (i.e. real objects in the real world).
- samatman 13y ago
  This is the only correct answer in this subthread. "Modern" is a look, not a time.
- lake99 13y ago
  Oh god! If this "modern" turns out to be just a passing trend, I'd hate to see the advent of post-modernism in UI design :)
  - kepano 13y ago
    One could make the argument that Forstall's iOS was post-modern. The choice of using real-word textures such as leather and notepaper were not just about helping novice computer users, they also seemed like an aesthetic choice, decorative features along the lines of Robert Venturi's architecture. I think Forstall might have agreed with him that "less is a bore".
- azernik 13y ago
  Just to tag along - I was surprised when I first saw early 1920s typographic/graphic design (esp. book covers) just how closely the newer "flat" UIs resemble that period's style. EDIT: As an example, here's a 1925 German journal cover that would look only slightly out of place in Windows 8: http://typographyhistory.tumblr.com/post/871290549/typographische-mitteilungen-october-1925-special http://typographyhistory.tumblr.com/post/871290549/typograph...
coldtea 13y ago
>Why is flat "modern"? I don't understand it. Emm, exactly because for years we used shadows, 3d look and stuff? So, anything that comes after that, is "modern" (it's a new look, that replaces the previous standard look). It's like fashion. There's nothing inherently modern in "flat" -- in 5-10 years when ornamental will make a comeback, it will be considered "modern".
- gbog 13y ago
  Here in HN we can elevate ourselves above these looped fashion styles. A way to do that is to find something that is old but not old-fashioned, or something that is new but not modernist. Examples abund in the domains of cars, music, book and I'd prefer not to drop names. But I can't seem to be able to find one single not-old-nor-new design in the domain of websites. Maybe HN is (or it is an old-baby)? Google could have been that: a specific flavor that is not outdated or trendy, but with this flat thing the last thread of hope has gone. Oh, one thing that is old-fashioned and very modern at the same time: the Terminal! Lovely friend, you was designed for 1bit/s teletypes, and you still the fastest and most reliable friend in all what I do to my computer. Hope you never dies. Shameless hook: I consider douban.com, where I work (beware: Chinese), to be somewhat not modernist nor old-fashioned, in a way.
twistedpair 13y ago
Because of the Hawthorne Effect. Change for the sake of change. You can't get complacent now. We need the continued product refresh cycles and relevancy of new trends.

iQuercus 13y ago

The old logo, warts and all is a classic by now. It's actually surprisingly timeless. In one word it's playful. I wouldn't change it just to follow the latest design trend.

binxbolling 13y ago
Which of the old logos are you referring to?
- iQuercus 13y ago
  The one shown in the article, which has been in use since 2010 I believe?

daGrevis 13y ago

It's about time. Old logo reminds me of times when people used tables to design web-pages.

phorese 13y ago

So Google becomes flat and keeps its serifs, while Yahoo! unflattens itself, but loses the serifs. Huh.

wtvanhest 13y ago

I'm surprised that it didn't take 30 seconds to load while missing letters.

jpswade 13y ago

This is speculation at best. We see this kind of news every time Google changes their favicon. http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/googles-new-favicon.html http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/googles-new-favicon...

marknutter 13y ago

The old logo is what most first time photoshop users would end up with shortly after discovering the bevel feature. It's about time they updated it.

petercooper 13y ago
It's funny how tastes shift. This whole "flat" look that's currently in would have looked babyish in the tech space 10+ years ago. And so it goes with bevels, shadows, and all the rest.. looks silly to us now but was de rigeur back then! :-) Of course, things will continue to shift and today's trendiest looks will seem ridiculous in 2023..
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  In 2023 all the hipsters will use B&W design. "You use colors? OMG, that looks like it was designed in 2010."
  - nathell 13y ago
    There is a precedent already: http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~wolinski/acfi.html http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~wolinski/acfi.html
  - lucaspiller 13y ago
    Just wait. Times New Roman is coming back...
  - steven777400 13y ago
    2023? Visual Studio switched to largely B&W icons in its 2012 release. Some of the websites that have been linked from HN as prime examples of flat design also used the B&W icon motif (I don't recall which ones specifically though).
    - Pxtl 13y ago
      Ick, don't remind me. Looking at the source control browser in VS2012 makes my eyes want to bleed.

howlett 13y ago

Windows logo got flat before it was cool.

oulipian 13y ago

The new one is not completely flat, there's some really subtle shading there. I like it a lot. More elegant.

gphil 13y ago

Whether or not Google is about to flatten their logo, it's worth noting that Yahoo just un-flattened theirs. It's also not inconceivable that one of the reasons Yahoo did this was to appear more Google-like.

willismichael 13y ago
Makes me think of Dr. Suess's story "The Sneetches": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Storie...

ozh 13y ago

If you look closely, it's not flat. There's a very thin bevel. It's symptomatic to me of Google's inability to make up their mind in the design department: UI different across products, UX disaster when they introduce discrepancies between products, not able to decide whether their logo is flat or bevel.... Really, Google is good at doing nerd stuff, but they should just outsource everything regarding design.

Keyframe 13y ago
If you look closely, it's not flat. There's a very thin bevel. I can't see it, where? I can see a gradient though. It's slick, font isn't though.
- ozh 13y ago
  thin gradient, or bevel, or shadow, not sure how you want to name that. The thing is, it's not flat.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    In that case, iOS 7 isn't flat either
- frogpelt 13y ago
  @ozh: thin gradient, or bevel, or shadow The terms are definitely not interchangeable.
frogpelt 13y ago
This probably more of a reflection on the person/people at the top. Apple did everything one way: Steve Jobs' way. Since his departure, I have seen less unified focus from Apple. Google's MO almost from the beginning has been sort of the opposite--to try everything at least once and have fun doing it. This spills over into some of their design philosophies too, I would think.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
If you look closely at all flat design, it's not flat. There's almost always a very thin bevel. There are several reasons for this: 1. it attempts to address the issue of flat UIs being absolute shite for UX. 2. it looks more interesting on a high definition screen. 3. it adds a finishing touch that sets it slightly apart from plain text.

wslh 13y ago

The world is flat ;-)

antonpug 13y ago

Interesting. Yahoo ditches flat for 3D. Google ditches 3D for flat. The result? Neither have good logos.

cnlwsu 13y ago
Yahoo's change was more the CEO deciding that she can redo it in a weekend. I would think any change from Google would go through a UX/UI design team and a ton of redundant meetings... not sure which is worse.
- antonpug 13y ago
  I don't think they went through any UX team here. Google needs a new face, a new logo. The colorful serif-font logo looks very childish and 90's.
  - delinka 13y ago
    "Googol" is a word invented by a child. "Google" is a homophone of this word. How to do you give the logo a less-childish treatment while maintaining a name that is also childish?

recycleme 13y ago

This modern look seems to typically have a slight gradient as well.

Yuioup 13y ago

Yahoo! What a great logo!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

programminggeek 13y ago

I'm not sure that taking the shadows out of their logo is actually changing it. Google uses flat logos on t-shirts and elsewhere I'm sure. Imagine a black t-shirt with a white google logo on it. Flattening a logo is something you might do in the context of usage, so I just don't know why flatening it for their default (which matches a lot of their existing design anyway), is seen as a big deal.

reustle 13y ago

So essentially Marissa took the bevel along with her from Google to Yahoo?

olog-hai 13y ago

Why link to #p3? Let me read the post from the top without making me scroll up.

martin-adams 13y ago

Maybe the new logo compresses better and Google are tightening it's belts.

Andrex 13y ago

They use this one in print materials. http://deployment.googleapps.com/Home/user-resources/google-icons-and-logos http://deployment.googleapps.com/Home/user-resources/google-... But if they're using it in Android apps it may point to more flattenification in KitKat/future releases. However, that doesn't seem to be the case: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710634/redesigned-google-logo-found-in-chrome-for-android-beta http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710634/redesigned-google-l... > Update: A person familiar with Google's branding tells The Verge that this is not a replacement for the company's traditional logo. Instead, the flatter design is used in instances where the beveled logo may not display well — such as on printed banners or other corporate use cases. The logo in question has been pulled from where it first appeared previously in Chrome for Android, signaling that the company quickly realized its mistake. Suffice it to say, the Google logo you know and love isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Case closed.

DanBC 13y ago

> but Joshua Stewart figured out that just by incrementing the number to 5 or 6 Wait what, people still do this and admit to it?

georgemcbay 13y ago
Yeah, somebody needs to lock this criminal Joshua Stewart up. Maybe he can share a cell with weev.

dbecker 13y ago

this looks about a million times better than the current logo Even accepting that this is hyperbole, I think it reflects a disconnect between design aficionados and normal users. The logos are pretty similar, and I'm skeptical that most people would have a preference either way.

mixmastamyk 13y ago
Indeed... I find the second much harder to differentiate from the background. Especially the yellow o.

crististm 13y ago

"...recent Yahoo disaster..." - thats what you get when focus-groups drive your design.

harrytuttle 13y ago

Well they probably save several terabytes a year with the new logo!

gjm11 13y ago

The actual Ars Technica headline begins (now, at least; perhaps it's changed) "Is Google changing its logo?", and recent updates to the article suggest that, as per Betteridge, the answer is "no, probably not".

Havoc 13y ago

Doesn't exactly shout "rapid technological progress".

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

It’s not a new logo. It’s not even a different logo: the glyph shapes are exactly the same in both versions, it just has different shading for when it needs to be displayed small. Apple has been known to try different shading and color for its logo, but that doesn’t mean that whenever they do so, they’ve adopted a new logo.

mydpy 13y ago

The title of this article, as posted to Hacker News, is "Google is changing its logo." The title of the article linked to by this post is "Is Google revamping its logo?". This is a significant difference.

clauretano 13y ago
Especially since the answer, as always, is no.

matt__rose 13y ago

This is funny HN headline: google is changing its logo Source Headline: Is google changing its logo? Source conclusion: No, google is not changing its logo.

adambard 13y ago
If the answer was "yes", they'd have no need to make the headline a question.

wil421 13y ago

If they really are changing their main logo to match that one, I wonder if they are doing it because Yahoo just changed their logo. Maybe Google is trying to compete with Marissa Meyer and her new strategies at Yahoo. Edit: Flat is so hot right now.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]