Topic: Google's new logo is shit.

Metæ started this discussion 11 years ago #45,236

Discuss.

brie !uXWPG0MygI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #597,036

I like the e.

Meowth joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,039

Looks immature.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,040

@597,036 (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
I like the o's. They are like the London underground font.

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,046

@597,039 (Meowth)

They went for a child-like look to represent innocence.

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,047

Wait, what? This logo is permanent?

squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,050

@597,046 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
it looks like shit. it looks like they rainbow colored the playskool logo.

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,051

@previous (squeegee)
Different font, also, this was probably their intention.
Source: Local News and @597,046 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #597,053

Luckily, I am not autistic enough to care.

brie !uXWPG0MygI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,054

@597,047 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
I believe it will be the current logo for at least the near future.

Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,057

@597,047 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)

> Wait, what? This logo is permanent?

Image of course does not include the new logo. Wait two three years or so for the next one.

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,058

@previous (Syntax)
I'm going to miss the "Times New Roman" esque logo.
The first two logos looked, meh.

Methlyfe !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,061

Agree, but I think it's the change to the second g that's bugging me the most.

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,063

> person on the internet has an opinion about something they have zero control over

k

dw joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,064

it's kind of generic consumer tech company now.
i do like this though

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 11 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,065

@597,061 (Methlyfe !KansasxqvM)
What is wrong with the second 'g', gee?

Anonymous L replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,066

@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
it went from one with an ear and a loop into the more basic stroke and circle

Meowth replied with this 11 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #597,076

@597,046 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I wouldn't be surprised.

brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,082

Doesn't it feel a bit futuristic?

squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,087

@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
it looks like it's from the 80s or something. and not in a cool 'old school' way. like in a 'Arial' is the default font in my font list kinda way.

Methlyfe !KansasxqvM replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,095

@597,065 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
It's completely different. It's funny I can remember having similar discussions almost every time Google changes their logo, or YouTube gets a major update.

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,102

Will --Google-- Alphabet Inc. have to pay $100,000 a day over this blatant logo typeface infringement?

Metæ (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,107

It's another bullshit cutesy sans serif generic logo that looks like all the other retarded cutesy logos. They're going on about >muh scalability. Can you really not render serifs legibly on today's 300+ PPI mobile screens?

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,111

@previous (Metæ)

They do more than phones

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,222

@597,107 (Metæ)
This only goes to show that smartphones need to be axed.

Million Mong March joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 45 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,226

Here it is in the poo font:

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,254

@597,061 (Methlyfe !KansasxqvM)
they almost kept it

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 32 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,258

@previous (dw)
wow. i wonder how much they got paid to end up using a default font?

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,259

@previous (squeegee)

It is in fact a custom font!

Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,266

*Alphabet

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 32 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,282

@597,259 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
it's arial with a rotated e and the G is rounded. such innovative.

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,284

@previous (squeegee)

The question is why does this bother you so much?

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,285

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
it doesn't? it's just ugly. like arial is ugly. just an opinion.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,287

@597,258 (squeegee)
it's not a font, it's a custom wordmark

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,291

@previous (dw)
that looks exactly like arial. but yeah, if they paid me to color arial the google colors i'd probably call it a custom wordmark too.

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,295

@previous (squeegee)

It's not Arial

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,300

@597,291 (squeegee)
it doesn't in the slightest look like arial

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,301

@597,291 (squeegee)
No, it's totally custom cause they made it like .0005% narrower than Arial.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,303

@597,107 (Metæ)

> Can you really not render serifs legibly on today's 300+ PPI mobile screens?

You probably can, but it also has to work on desktop monitors, low resolution laptops, televisions, cars, print items, etc

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,304

@previous (dw)
"Oh noes I can't use teh Google because the serifs render poorly on my VGA monitor from 1987"

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 13 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,305

@597,300 (dw)
wat? arial the font. it looks exactly like it except the G is fully rounded. every other letter is identical. it's as arial as you can get without having to download the actual font.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,306

@previous (squeegee)

> wat? arial the font. it looks exactly like it except the G is fully rounded. every other letter is identical. it's as arial as you can get without having to download the actual font.

You could have named any geometric sans and you would have a point

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,308

@597,305 (squeegee)
@previous (dw)
it does kinda look like it, but the Os are more rounded

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,316

@previous (R)

Lmao none of those letters are the same

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,319

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
The second G and the L are identical. The E is identical except it's slightly rotated. The Os are a bit more rounded. The only big difference is the capital G.

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,328

@previous (R)

If you think the second G and L are identical then you need glasses, they're very different. Overlay them and see. The Os are a lot more rounded, and besides even if they were only a bit more rounded a small pixel difference makes a massive change in a font

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,330

@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
The L is literally identical. It is a single line. That is all it is. There can't be any fucking difference. As for the G, they are identical except that with both fonts they are based on the O. And the Os differ slightly, which I already said.

Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 24 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,331

@597,319 (R)
Are the o's circles?

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 58 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,332

@previous (D)
Yes.

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,341

@597,330 (R)

The l in Arial is thinner, and proportionally shorter than the l in Product Sans.

The g in Arial is also thinner, has a larger loop which is oval-shaped, not spherical. The curve is longer, and makes a deeper bowl. The curve ends on the same 'line' as the left of the loop, and the end of it is straight and pointing upwards.

Why can't you argue for a less retarded idea for which font it is supposed to resemble, like Roboto Sans or something

(Edited 37 seconds later.)

Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,344

my god you all have autism don't you

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,348

@597,341 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
> The l in Arial is thinner, and proportionally shorter than the l in Product Sans.
no its not

> The g in Arial is also thinner
yes literally everything is thinner, if you want i can open photoshop and make another picture with a slightly thinner arial. these are settings of a font, not the actual font itself

> has a larger loop which is oval-shaped, not spherical
that is the O, i already said that

> The curve is longer, and makes a deeper bowl
that is a very, very small change

> The curve ends on the same 'line' as the left of the loop, and the end of it is straight and pointing upwards.
that is a very, very small change

> Why can't you argue for a less retarded idea for which font it is supposed to resemble, like Roboto Sans or something
ask squeegee. also, why cant you hold a job?

beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,376

I have to support dw and Towel here. Not Arial-like at all. Thanks.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,380

@previous (beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q)
What is your expert typographical expert opinion on the new Google logo?

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,383

@597,376 (beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q)
Is Arial a 15 minute drive from you?

beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q replied with this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,385

@597,380 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I quite disliked it at first, but it is growing on me. I rate it 7/10 but I expect that rating to go up when I'm more used to it.

Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,398

i just saw it on the site and quite liked it, it looks soft and sexy

beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,399

@597,383 (Metæ)
Arial, SC is quite a long drive away from me.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,430

@597,308 (R)
You can put any sans there and it will sort of vaguely resemble it, but the proportion and thickness and contrast are all completely different.

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,432

@previous (dw)
how can a font determine contrast?

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,433

@597,341 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)

The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,435

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

Don't you run Tinychan?

brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 10 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,436

I love the discussion this one simple change has sparked.

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,438

@597,435 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
Only the law enforcement division.

Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,440

@597,435 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
He does along with On
And he gives people shit if they post any kind of degraded/compressed graphics.
Post a Jpeg when a PNG is available will get you all kinds of hell. Its good hell but still hell.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,446

@597,432 (R)
Just the variations in thickness in the lines. Arial has variaton and Google's logo has none

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,447

@previous (dw)
But contrast is the difference between foreground ans background color

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,450

@previous (R)
also yes

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,490

yup, like i said, arial. someone got paid for coloring a default font.

i wonder if they just used ms word or if they actually bothered to use illustrator to "make it."

brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,499

Next time I log into my Google docs I am going to be fucking rich.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,518

@597,490 (squeegee)
> I can't come up with any counter-arguments so I'm repeating my first line

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,521

@previous (dw)
counter argument to what? it's just arial with some insignificant changes is all. go to bed.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,528

@previous (squeegee)
It is just Arial in the same way that the previous logo was just Caslon. You can say this about any wordmark.

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,530

@previous (dw)
wat? the old logo looked nothing like Caslon. You could have named any calligraphic stroke serif and you would have a point.

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,532

@previous (squeegee)

> wat? the old logo looked nothing like Caslon. You could have named any calligraphic stroke serif and you would have a point.

You seem to think that every sans serif is the same, so I assumed you thought that about serifs as well.

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,540

@previous (dw)
when did i say that? all i said was this logo looks like Arial. this is arial.

also i specifically explained what parts weren't exactly arial, so how does that make me inapplicable of telling the difference.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,548

@previous (squeegee)
that doesn't look like the original though, lol

squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,555

@previous (dw)
you're just nitpicking the spacing.

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,562

@597,540 (squeegee)
Some graphic designer probably got paid 6 figures to make the "o" rounder and tilt the "e" a bit.

The tilted e reminds me of Enron.

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 6 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,563

@597,540 (squeegee)
i love you

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 4 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,564

@597,555 (squeegee)
Nope. It's not even in the same class of type.

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,565

@previous (dw)
that means literally nothing

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,569

@previous (R)
http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fontology/level-1/type-anatomy/type-classifications

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 52 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,571

@previous (dw)
i dont see how that is relevant

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,572

@previous (R)
i said arial is in a different type classification than the product sans, you apparently didnt understand that so i linked to a list explaining them

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,574

@previous (dw)
no i do understand but if they still look incredibly similar i dont see how it matters what classification it is. thats like saying how arial is a fish from a culinary perspective

brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,577

@previous (R)
fonts are important. learn them. know them.

beckyderp !4aMoRa.T2Q replied with this 11 years ago, 47 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,597

@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
agree completely

dw replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,598

@597,574 (R)
> but if they still look incredibly similar
but they dont lol

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 27 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #597,599

@previous (dw)
see
@597,540 (squeegee)

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #597,731

@597,574 (R)

Million Mong March replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #597,757

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
lol reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-sxLhkrQQ

Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,710

I think it looks like crap and I actually thought my computer was hacked it had such a bad, lowbrow, dirt bag, made up, cheap look to it. Yuck I hate it!!!

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,722

@previous (V)
Could this be why Firefox jumped ship to Yahoo?

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,723

I heard they did it to save memory. Since that logo is probably loaded a few billion times a day, significant bandwidth is saved world wide. Not much, but significant in places where data comes at a premium.

I think they still could have done a better job, even for a space-saving logo.

http://gizmodo.com/how-could-googles-new-logo-be-only-305-bytes-while-its-1728793790

(Edited 1 minute later.)

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,731

@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)

<svg xmlns="SVG namespace"

wait, that works? I don't have to use

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"

(Edited 56 seconds later.)

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,745

@599,723 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> memory
> bandwidth
> data premium
> google

you fakn wat m8
you do realize these people are also running youtube and that each client only has to download the logo once for it to get cached

(Edited 33 seconds later.)

Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,801

@599,723 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)

It's true, the old logo was 2kb compressed but the new logo is only 305b, it's because the old one had to use bezier curves but the new one can mostly be constructed of circles and rectangles

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,807

@599,723 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
@previous (Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ)
also the logo embedded in the front page is actually 13kb so what are you people even on about

https://www.google.com/images/branding/googlelogo/2x/googlelogo_color_272x92dp.png

Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,810

@previous (R)

> This helps us make the design pixel perfect everywhere it’s used, and it allows us to optimize these assets for size and latency, including building a special variant of our full-color logo that is only 305 bytes, compared to our existing logo at ~14,000 bytes. The old logo, with its intricate serifs and larger file size, required that we serve a text-based approximation of the logo for low bandwidth connections. The new logo’s reduced file size avoids this workaround and the consistency has tremendous impact when you consider our goal of making Google more accessible and useful to users around the world, including the next billion.

https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-identity/

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,811

@previous (Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ)
ok thats an svg thats not actually even used on their frontpage. why does this matter?

Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,812

@previous (R)

It makes Google more accessible and useful to users around the world, including the next billion. It's a refinement of what makes Google googley, and combines the brand that the users know and love with thoughtful consideration towards how their needs are changing.

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,814

@previous (Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ)
THEY DONT ACTUALLY USE IT

go to google.com, right click the logo, inspect element, observe that a 13kb png is being used. the 305 byte svg is nowhere to be found.

Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,815

@previous (R)

They don't call it a special variant because they use it for everyone

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,816

@previous (Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ)
please find me a single instance where they use it

Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,817

@previous (R)

> The old logo, with its intricate serifs and larger file size, required that we serve a text-based approximation of the logo for low bandwidth connections. The new logo’s reduced file size avoids this workaround...

I mean they're talking about delivering to desert nomads and filthy african children here

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,819

@previous (Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ)
please find me a single instance where they use it

Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,820

@previous (R)

I linked you to an official Google source which says that they use it for low bandwidth connections where it was previously impossible to load the logo proper.

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,821

@previous (Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ)
please link me to the pages that these low bandwidht connections load. i just artifically limited my connection to 1kb/s. guess what? still got the 13kb png

Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,822

@previous (R)

Limit it to 300 baud thanks

Anonymous R replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,823

@previous (Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ)
so 300 bits/second which would be 37.5 bytes/second. this causes all connections to time out.

Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,824

Attention Minichan: take your autism meds.

The autism is so out of control that you are all arguing about fonts and the logo of a search engine.

(Edited 23 seconds later.)

Metæ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,833

@599,723 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
@599,801 (Doctor Dick ?? !DEePerQmUQ)
2kb vs 305 bytes? What is this? 1983 on a fucking Hayes 300 baud Smartmodem? Why not just make the logo be typed out GOOGLE in ASCII there I just saved you another few hundred bytes AND it's more accessible to the blind with screen reader software.

Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,835

@previous (Metæ)
Please calm down. I am worried that people getting this autistic over a minor logo change is going to create a singularity of autism a destabilise reality.

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,849

@599,807 (R)
Well they didn't do a very good job because I was able to shave off 818 bytes from that png.

Anyway, there's no reason to not use the new 305 byte version everywhere, regardless of connection speed. Either roll out the new micro-logo or go back to what's good. Quit fucking around with raster images.

Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,851

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
That is it. I am going to kill myself before there is a critical overflow of autism.

Farewell, you autists. I'm glad I'm killing myself now, before you all start arguing over the exact shade of yellow on the second o.

Doctor Dick !DEePerQmUQ replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #599,876

@previous (H)

We don't need to argue about that, it's #fbbc05 which is "Selective Yellow"

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 2 weeks later, 4 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #607,396

Oh, saved another 396 bytes.

Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #607,399

@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Your autism is off the charts

FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #607,401

@previous (X)

Jon Favreau joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 year later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,358

bump

dw replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,360

p good

Jon Favreau replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,361

@previous (dw)
hell yeah

buto joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,373

@597,540 (squeegee)

> when did i say that? all i said was this logo looks like Arial. this is arial.
>
> also i specifically explained what parts weren't exactly arial, so how does that make me inapplicable of telling the difference.

looks nothing like the logo

Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,499

@previous (buto)
you're only saying that because of the e

Metæ (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,500

I still think the new logo is shit.

Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,503

@previous (Metæ)
Second.

buto replied with this 10 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,513

@721,499 (Jubilee Starshine)
no its entirely different. feels nothing like the google logo. dw is right

@721,500 (Metæ)
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
fuddyduddies

Anonymous X replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #721,538

@721,360 (dw)

> p good

Anonymous Z-4 joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 5 months later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #763,202

@597,433 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)

Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 16 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #763,306

Still think it's shit.

hot toddy replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #763,338

this thread pissed me off lol lol
the logo is fine

@previous (Meta)
fuddyduddy

Anonymous E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #763,437

I still like it fuck y all

Udw !vJwW0tsPXQ replied with this 9 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #763,591

Ugh this fucking draad