Should google return to the old logo?

1997 logo is kino

>>61826386
1999-2010 logo is GOAT

File: 1.png (48KB, 362x145px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 362x145px

>>61826339
Less and less detail. Pic related in 2030?

>>61826339

They should return to the pre-1997 logo.

>>61826470
no, its going to be just 6 color bars

File: 2.png (1KB, 344x62px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 344x62px

>>61826505

>>61826616
kek

Eventually it will just become a rainbow for eternal lgbt equality or some bullshit.

>>61826616
you post this as a joke, but you could show this image to anyone today and they would know exactly what it represents
i think that's sort of neat

>>61826672
>you could show this image to anyone today and they would know exactly what it represents
You're retarded. Put the pipe down.

File: superior_google.png (55KB, 1666x868px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1666x868px

This is the ideal Google homepage.
You may not like it, but this is what peak search looks like.

>>61826731
Make fonts aliased and its sold.

>>61826505
>>61826616
screencap these posts for later reference. I'll sue google for millions

>>61826731
damn I want it

>>61826339
Current is the best, sans-serif font, good colors.

>>61826339
1997 logo is fucking weird but I can dig it

>>61826616
Don't give them ideas anon. Screencap it. They're gonna use it.

>>61826693
not anon, but if I'm sure that by now, most people recognize google's color scheme

>>61826808
>basic and kiddy design
It reflects their employee mentality, I guess.

1999-2010 is best. Has enough sophistication to not look like it is designed for/by children.

My favorite is 2010-2013

>>61827190
It looks like WordArt. That's all the reason I need to like it.

>>61826339
>There is some who gets paid to literally just change the font, and switch the colors around every few years.

>>61826339
'99 logo a best

>>61827386
(99-10, that is)

>1999
made me think of Jeb

>>61826339
I don't mind the logo, I just wish they didn't have all those propaganda "doodles".

>>61827410
Nasty Guy.

>>61827386
>>61827403
2013-2015 is the same thing but without the pointless drop shadow or 3D effect. That should have stayed.

>>61827454
Poor poor Jeb!

File: jeb is a mess.png (259KB, 805x666px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 805x666px

>>61827588
Two days ago, he said he'd take off his pants and moon everybody-

>>61827707
You aren't gonna win the election by insulting everybody

File: 123789421412.png (14KB, 1862x340px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1862x340px

>>61826339
I have seen the future, and it works

>>61827323
yes

File: a.png (14KB, 1666x868px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1666x868px

>>61826731
ftfy

>>61826731
KINO

File: please clap.jpg (54KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 636x358px

>>61827454

>>61829165
best post with actual truth

File: Google-Assistant-Animated-Dots-4.gif (393KB, 200x244px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 200x244px

>>61826616
>>61826470
>>61829106
retards

I would expect them to go back to a flattened version of the 1998 logo

I wonder why they decided to change that G from green to blue.

I wonder why corporate america has this idiotic fixation on changing their logos at least once a decade. it's completely pointless.

File: preview.gif (589KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 800x600px

>>61829426
serifs again? why?
they really got down to basic components with their current identity, retire the full wordmark, leaving only the G - and you risk getting your name changed to 'gee' just like that, removing color kills recognition and ignores a whole important component - it's not like we don't see color, shit like >retiring letters entirely and >removing branding is retarded and is >brand erasure
I really don't know where they would go next.
Google Assistant's design is shit, by the way. Maybe they're feeling a bit lost themselves.

File: comfy with no bloat.png (21KB, 1060x638px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1060x638px

>>61826616
>>61827267
Is it bad that I actually like it and have adopted it now? I'm comfy with my minimal Google homepage now.

>>61826672
Agreed.

>>61829422
>>61829632
Not a fan of circles, in the shape world squares are males, circles are females, triangles are trans.

>>61826339

All of them are terrible.

It's a 90s tech company with a fucked up name. Literally toddler speak. You cannot make it good, ever.

Just as stupid as YouTube or iPhone. At least in the 2000s they had the courtesy to make it pronouncable. Fuck i hate the attitude the tech industry has sometimes.

File: search-bar-shot.jpg (38KB, 1080x315px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1080x315px

>>61829664
now remove the 'logo' and that useless button and you're all set

they could just adopt 'search box' as a part of their identity, or as their identity itself
it's basically synonymous with google anyway and is present across many of their services
they risk having the mic misinterpreted as a logo or something, but that'll go away once 'always listening' thing fully sets in
i always liked this part of their identity, the omnipresent floating search box

File: Miniminiminimal.png (12KB, 1060x638px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1060x638px

>>61829746
Logo stays because I like it. I never use voice search so that's always been gone.

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/12324-google-logo-restorer

>>61826339
10-13 pretty comfy

>>61826339
Best: 1999-2010 or 2010-2013
Well, maybe a bit too much shadow in the older one, somewhere in between the two.

File: 2894688-0004.jpg (11KB, 340x255px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 340x255px

This one

File: 1443350490911.png (34KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 501x585px

>>61826470
Second "g" looks like the happy merchant

>>61830496
thanks