And in 2-3 years there'll be another post 'explaining' how the 2013 logo was too dull or the gradients lacked dynamics or something, and there'll be another logo that's basically the same with marginal changes, because people basically can't resist the urge to tweak.
I appreciate that people get bored and design sensibilities change. But spare us the long-winded itemization of why this is 'objectively' better, when it's obviously a simple matter of taste.
Comments
And in 2-3 years there'll be another post 'explaining' how the 2013 logo was too dull or the gradients lacked dynamics or something, and there'll be another logo that's basically the same with marginal changes, because people basically can't resist the urge to tweak.
I appreciate that people get bored and design sensibilities change. But spare us the long-winded itemization of why this is 'objectively' better, when it's obviously a simple matter of taste.
Fair point, but it is objectively better at small sizes (see comments above), a bit similar to the original one.
I don't really agree. I liked the second one best, but I presume there was some good reasons for the last version they adopted as well.
A blog post with just pictures of the new design obviously doesn't make an interesting blogpost xD