New new new

But are any of them better?

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Comments

richard winchell says:

Nope, and with the exception of UPS, all of them are using typefaces that will look pretty dated in five years.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

merlinmann says:

That UPS change is still just really hard to understand. That old one was such a great logo.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Ravensky says:

UPS looks ok, but the others are just..meh. Ugly?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

tempo says:

If everything else these days has built-in obsolescence, why should logos be any different?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

The UPS one has some merit, but still would have liked a tune-up of Rand's classic instead. The Kodak and Intel ones are just, jesus, they just are so plain and unremarkable.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Jeff Croft says:

I really don't like the at&t one. The intel and kodak are both okay, but they're pretty bland and dull. The UPS one I basically like, but it has the unfortunate problem of not living up to the original, even though it's pretty decent.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

michael.buffington says:

I think both AT&T and UPS did a great job at retaining their original iconography (at least some flavor of it) while moving into a more modern style of logos. Intel took the 80's style logo they used for most of the 90's and replaced it with a 90's style logo they'll use for most of the, uh, 00's. Kodak swallowed some kind of stupid bean and threw away their quite powerful brand for something that you'd expect to show up on frozen waffle boxes.

Speaking of Kodak, the logo itself is a visual manifestation of their transition into the film destroying digital era, which is to say they're blowing it big time and have been on a steady downhill slide since the second Casio released the first cheap digital camera.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Brett L. says:

Can someone link to versions of the previous logos?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Zach Inglis says:

I hate the change to Kodak. Simple logos ARE better but that doesn't mean you don't have to add something to it, rather than a name and a few lines, even if they cut the lines diagonally there'd be something to it.

UPS logo is brill.

at&t I don't like the logo of due to the wraparound lines.

like the font on Intel.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Mike Monteiro says:

These all suck. They're a testament to the crap that comes out of focus groups. (To be fair Intel's previous logo sucked as much as their new one.)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

dancharvey says:

The intel logo seems to be playing off the old tagline, "intel inside", yes?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

vanderwal says:

I never understood why UPS went to a dented package for their logo.

I like the new AT&T icon, but really do not like the typeface. Kodak was much better off unchanged. Intel old and new logos do not do much for me.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

blurb says:

None of the new ones say a thing about what these companies do. I blame either pushy arrogant consultants or pussy clients too afraid to think big and make a decision without leaning on somebody outside to blame when it doesn't work.

At least UPS went with a non-blue color scheme.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

richard winchell says:

At this point, blurb, do you need a logo to tell you what any of these companies does?

UPS' old logo had the package, but that was it for literal clues. And it's why they redesigned it, for better or worse, since UPS does a lot more than deliver packages.

Should Intel have a microchip in there someplace? Should Sony have something in their logo that tells you "about what [they] do"?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

sizeight says:

Thumbs up to AT&T and UPS. Intel logo looks too much like their Intel Inside logo and isn't captivating or special at all. Kodak had a decent well established old logo (although it does look a bit dataed), but the new logo is... well, not much to say about the new logo really.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

blurb says:

Well, each of the old logos had an element or two that spoke to the essence of the company, and did so quite well. What is lacking from the new ones (save at&t) is a conceptual thread. Kodak's old logo implied focal points, light and projection. The new one implies a nice burger?

Sony could have a stronger logo, yes. Nike is so highly regarded as a logomark because it ties so closely with the products and what they do. Apple handled their brand refresh very well, getting right down to the nub of the brand identity, while simultaneously releasing products and product experiences that match the simplicity of the logo.

Strong brand awareness and strong logos are two entirely different things. Just because we know these brands so well, does that mean anything goes?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

mikkee1973 says:

They all fucking suck save UPS. People with enormous marketing budgets who feel as though they have to spend them. Intel finally comes into the nineties sixteen years later. That swoosh is so- Modern!
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Seldo says:

I like the AT&T logo although the use of lowercase letters because they're non-threatening makes me laugh.

Intel's is actually pretty subtle. It's very similar to Intel Inside, which most people already thought was their logo.

The UPS one is snazzy.

The Kodak one is a step backwards.

They will probably look dated in 10 years, just like the old ones did, but that's sort of why I like logos; they're always such children of their time.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

swgn says:

The revised AT&T 'globe' looks very similar, both in colour and overall design language, to the Google Earth icon.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

spcoon says:

nope
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

idogcow says:

Oh man, that is the first time I have seen the kodak one and I hate it already.

at&t: how is that going to look in b&w? lo-res??
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

haselwand says:

blurb: You are so right about the Kodak logo! It is almost like a simplified Burger King logo. Yuck. I am the least happy with this change.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

[?]

	veen's photostream
		1,438 uploads

This photo also belongs to:

	My most interesting (Set)
		40 items

3 people call this photo a favorite

Additional Information

Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Taken on January 16, 2006
Viewed 4,178 times

Add to your map

Yay location removed

...

(Some formats are OK.)

Or, remove it from the map.

Go to the map

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

New new new

Comments

richard winchell says:

merlinmann says:

Ravensky says:

tempo says:

jkottke says:

Jeff Croft says:

michael.buffington says:

Brett L. says:

Zach Inglis says:

Mike Monteiro says:

dancharvey says:

vanderwal says:

blurb says:

richard winchell says:

sizeight says:

blurb says:

mikkee1973 says:

Seldo says:

swgn says:

spcoon says:

idogcow says:

haselwand says:

Would you like to comment?

veen's photostream

My most interesting (Set)

Tags

Additional Information