chicky's picture

>It's insecure, trendy,
>And don't forget the requisite swoosh!
Would buyers give it a second look without this marketing plan?

fonthausen's picture

I personally prefer the original logo (with coloured stripes).


chicky's picture

>the petition to stop it ...
...Update - last checked at numba 1427

plainclothes's picture

one more thing; this one goes back to Hrant's
comments a bit up the thread (sorry, I haven't been
following lately). the benefit of a one-button,
"counter-intuitive" mouse is that it allows you to use
your whole hand to depress the button, thus reducing
repetitive stress. I speak from experience, though I'm
still using a multi-button here at work. and as for
"downgrading" to the single-button again, it was no
more difficult for me than going the other direction.

hrant's picture

> the slobering masses

Exactly. "Consumer culture", an oxymoron.
Any of us who pretend otherwise are letting
their brand loyalty get in the way.


chicky's picture

>I personally prefer ... (with coloured stripes).

Well that logo lost the war in the U.S.

cchs's picture

A six-color logo is as impractical as a transparent/chromed one. Focus goups and Photoshop filters are usurping craft.

Chris Rugen's picture

Personally, I quite like the less swoop-y version with the shine to it. It was in line with their hardware, and still simple enough to accommodate the different colors (for cases and product lines).

I think apple strove and continues to strive for 1) sleek, different, elegant hardware 2) friendly, simple print design. Their interface design is trying to reflect both of these and, unfortunately, sometimes forgets its place in the process. However, I think that ITC Garamond Tall 'n' Fat and Myriad match(ed) Apple's desires. I'm sure that they aren't the most typo-rigorous choices, but they have other concerns. At least they didn't use Gill Sans, which is _everywhere_ in the US for corporations whose creative directors don't want to actually make a decision concerning their identity/ branding.

Believe me, Apple is in the upper echelons compared to some of the obscene 'style guides' I've seen. One major medical company actually stipulates "san serif" for headlines and "serif" for body copy!

PS: The packaging for the old iPod was brilliant, and is a great example of what keeps a lot of people loyal. It even had Myriad on it. And _somehow_ it still worked. :-)

cchs's picture

> Personally, I quite like the less swoop-y version with the shine to it. It was in line with their hardware...

Sorry. Not good enough.

What a slippery slope we tread on if logos have to be redesigned to match hardware.

The apple mark, originally a reference to education and a counterpunch to "big blue," has transcended those associations and come to symbolize a certain creative (cult)ure. It's power is derived from its history, its legacy, and its following.

For Apple to redress their logo every time a new product encasement or UI theme is introduced is to turn their backs on the source of the mark's authority, and ultimately deminishes its credbility.

cchs's picture

I'm reminded of a scene from the old British sitcom, Fawlty Towers:

Basil's (John Cleese) wife is admiring the many chains and medallions adorning the neck and chest of one of their guests. The guest talks proudly (though unsurely) about the symbolism of these objects.

Basil, infuriated by the guest's ignorance and arrogance, retorts to his wife, "That type would wear a dog turd around his neck if it were made of gold."

Seems we feel that chrome and swooshes have the midas touch as well.

Dan Weaver's picture

Keep in mind Apple has changed its focus (Yet again) It originally had software that they abandened, focusing on hardware, now its focus is as much on software as hardware. It has alieniated Adobe but Adobe wants to be Mircrosoft. So we have all this marketing and not alot of substance coming out of Apple. Sad

chicky's picture

>not alot of substance coming out of Apple. Sad
What substance would you like to see Apple come out with?

kakaze's picture

Heh, I was talking to someone on IRC who works for an Apple call centre. He said this about a week ago, and I just remembered it, had to go scour my log for it. Thought it was quite apropos:

<mnkyangst> I don't think my company knows who the •••• we want anymore. We lost the schools when Dell outsupported us. We lost the sound engineers and DTP people when we switched to OS X and ProTools and Quark didn't. We lost the gays when we took the rainbow out of our logo. :-)

steve_p's picture

>>What substance would you like to see Apple come out with?

Well, I've never used a Mac, but I'd be willing to give it a go if they could come up a with something approaching the spec of a PC for the same price.
So the substance I'd like to see would be, say, 75% of the spec that I can get from a PC. That might persuade me to try a Mac, then I might find out what all the fuss is about.

chicky's picture

>approaching the spec of a PC for the same price.
speed, memory, graphics?

hrant's picture

In fact the best-looking computer I've ever owned was a Dell laptop (but an older one):
it was petite, with minimal curves, and a somber gray. And rock solid in construction.
A stoic road warrior. Not a singing bard with a fancy hat.


beejay's picture

The $2,000 you lose with a dumb decision to ? Go Mac ?
pays for itself pretty quick.
Singing bards with fancy hats* are all the rage
on the weekend birthday-party circuit.

beejay's picture


Nick Shinn's picture

I'm puzzled by the different design directions Apple is taking between the computer case and the interface/logo.

The G5 case is minimalist, moving away from the G3 to G4 trend that saw increasing bloatedness (that's right the Mascara Snake, fast and bulbous..) However, the OS interface and logo are still stuck in puffyland. I would expect future Apple graphics to go retro simple.

beejay's picture

>> Oh pleeeaaaaseee...

I told you I was oversimplifying. :P

>>The only cool thing about Apple...

Singing bards with fancy hats

chicky's picture

>and now for the Dell PC

chicky's picture

>It has been proven by Dell that hyperthreaded Intel are faster and the next gen of AMD 64bit Processors will make G5 and P4 look slooow and old.


[Gaaaa, sorry for the double post <:-} ]

chicky's picture

Are you comparing mac to a V12 or D87?

steve_p's picture

So the eMac is only slightly more expensive than a Dell with half the processor, half the hard drive and half the memory (and slower memory).
And that doesn't include the fact that Dell are nowhere near the best value PC's, or that the eMac saddles you with a 17" monitor.

Recent purchase:
2.40GHz Athlon
80 GB 7200 UDMA HDD
ATI Radeon 9000 graphics
6 channel sound
Pinnacle Pro TV tuner/capture
Sony DVD
Iiyama 19" flat screen monitor
usb x 6, firewire x 2, bluetooth
network, modem, keyboard, mouse, case, cooling etc etc

aluminum's picture

Oh no! I'm missing a PC/Mac debate!

There is no way it should have taken them so long to develop a Unix based operating

Umm...Unix has been around for 25 years now? Longer? And it finally took Apple to develop a usable, clean GUI to Unix. KDE is getting close to the same goal, but they've taken the 'let's copy windows as best we can' approach instead of trying something new. Not nearly as succesful.

As for the platform wars, there's interesting, outdated arguments coming from both sides. Wintel fans still claim that the price difference amongh the platforms is gigantic, and Mac fans still claim that the Mac is much easier to use. Neither are really true anymore. They're simply different OSes that pretty much do the same thing for the most part.

As far as I am concerned, it's all been downhill since the C-64 ;o)

hrant's picture

> As far as I am concerned, it's all been downhill since the C-64 ;o)

No joke, dude, no joke. Not to mention the Amiga. The 4000 could (can?) do full-screen real-time animation in crispy 18-bit about ten years ago,and the "lowly" 1000 back in '86 had a true preemptive multi-tasking operating system. It was too good to become popular.


matha_standun's picture

It was too good to become popular

Like some typographers


hdschellnack's picture

To me, there is no PC/Mac debate. It's just tools, and since the software is basically the same, it's all just a matter of taste anyway. Both operating systems have massive faults, and I for one woul dbe happy to see something sleek and completely new come along that feels like InDesign felt compared to Quark.

The porice, however, is not an argument. The kind of hardware you need for a really good system makes Mac and PC almost equally expensive. My machine is in the 17.500 Euro range, and a really nicely tuned-up G5 would be in the same range. It really boild down to what you're used top and what you feel more comfortable with. I still stand by the Umberto Eco comment that Mac is catholic and PC is protestant :-).

Hildebrant's picture


Ok recent systems I justy put together for my firm:

P4 3gig with HT
4 gigs of Dual Channel ram
serial ata raido array, 320 gigs at 10,000 rpm
audigy 2 platinum with breakout box
and fireGL cards
dual viewsonic 22" professional series monitors
ohh and the klipsch 2.1 sound systems

Thought you might appreciate that ;)
Im stoked. all at around 3,000 per machine.

The new serial ATA drive are VERY cool.
as fast (almost) as SCSI drives.


P.S. not too mention the fun of having all your employees get together and have a "computer building party" over night, with cocktails and such.

hrant's picture

And here I was thinking you're not a geek.


eomine's picture

Links from Wired (great magazine BTW):
Apple iDolatry & PC Mods.

hawk's picture

Steve Jobs:

"Victory in our industry is spelled survival. The way we're going to survive is to innovate our way out of this...

"Every time we've brought innovation into the marketplace, our customers have responded - strongly. We only have to attract 5 out of the other 95 people who use PCs to switch, and Apple doubles its market share."

Time magazine, January 14 2002

Chris Rugen's picture

I prefer the mac, but it cannot compete when it comes to computer gaming.

Anyway, they're 2 different tools. They match and mismatch in many ways. What I want to know is why do people seem so eager to devote their mind and spirit to a corporation or corporations they know very little about? Believe me, if your opinion of a company is based on its website and its products, you have a very incomplete picture.

To swerve back to the topic (sort of): What's so wrong about a given company using a chrome look to their mark, particularly Apple, if it also works in B/W, etc.? Is there something inherently wrong about it? Again, I think that Apple has a pretty distinct look (as a whole) and some very strong brand management. They are a consumer-oriented, image-conscious electronics manufacturer/ software developer. Why would they keep their image (which I consider to be a subset of their brand) static?

Look at Nike. Their logo gets used in all sorts of materials and colors, but the Swoosh is still the Swoosh. I think the same goes for the Apple. The surface changes, but the mark endures. I understand the disdain for shiny, swooshy crap, but most of those low-grade redesigns often accompany a total brand overhaul and a total re-shaping of their mark. Apple has remained very controlled compared to many corporations. I think that's probably why we freak out every time they tweak (redress) the logo or change the typeface (What is it, once so far?.

It's hard to be innovative and consistent at the same time. Most of the objections I've read are high-minded design concerns that ignore the practicalities of business and focus on a conceptual level, or are a general reaction to sheep-like actions of large corporations (which is hardly shocking). Consumers still know Apple, still recognize the mark, and Apple still looks contemporary. What other visual brand concerns should they, as a corporation, have?

hrant's picture

> Is there something inherently wrong about it?

It's culturally bankrupt. Sexy Robot was in the 70s. Hey, just like ITC Garamond! :-/


hdschellnack's picture

Okay, concerining the logo, I think the titanium look ain't that bad, except for that weird swoosh they added to give it more texture. It won't last long, but I could envision that Apple develops a kind of living logo that changes with the look of the machines, while maintaining the apple shape. It could be neat and it would fit the company.

Dan Weaver's picture

HD are you suggesting a furry apple like panther fur perhaps.

gmh's picture

I guess I came a bit late, but anyway:

>Check out the new LaCie drives designed by Porsche
>design. There is no mistaking the G5 inspiration. (I'm not
>saying LaCie is copying Apple... Who could blame them
>for dumping their beige plastic for buttery metal.)

I doubt they were even inspired by the G5 since the drives were released months before the G5.


mica's picture

Logos are supposed to stand for something. When a company changes the very way they graphically represent their firm, I find it usually represents a fundamental change in what the company is all about. It's an indicator.

Anyway, didn't Apple always have a suitable 1-color version of their logo?

darrel: at my work we have one Mac, many PCs, a few Suns, and even a bunch of Commodores (64s - but also SuperPets) that all run everyday. It's a living computer museum.

beejay's picture

designers in the action sport industry play by their
own rules anyway...the ones I've met or worked with
are generally rebels who get high
on their own innovations.

Some get high in other ways, too.

Being different is a badge of honor.

Quiksilver recently revamped...

Pop quiz: what rebel is responsible for this?

cchs's picture

Dunno...reminds me of this, though:


beejay's picture

Yes, David Carson. He's Art Director at Quiksilver.

hrant's picture

Joe, come on - you've always lambasted the swoosh. Don't be such an Apple apologist.

> Yes, David Carson. He's Art Director at Quiksilver.

How convenient that they misspell their name!


hdschellnack's picture

> XP is ugly and bloated.
You can simply change that by hacking a bit and changing some stuff. And, sadly, the blue-pill-Apple look isn't so sleek either. Here's hoping both companies give more power to the user in future. At least with XP you can completely and utterly alter the surface and look/feel of the OS with tools like WindowBlinds. That should be a given with XP itself, but at least there is a tool for it :-D.

>Commodores (64s - but also SuperPets)
Oh, that's cool. I noticed today at a meeting how many designers refer to their career by mentioning old hard- and software. Which version of Pagemaker, or which Mac/PC you started with, or even if you started pre-Computer, it obviously kinda sticks in your mind.

quiksilver looks oddly un-Carson in a way of looking too much like Carson, if that makes sense -- more like a student imitating David. It has the superficial look, but doesn't feel like his Ray Gun stuff, it's just visual, not really

heckman's picture

This topic always makes me laugh. PC vs Mac. What you buy is not just Hardware but Software as well. I would gladly pay the extra for OS X. It creams everything out there in terms of stability and ease of use.

tIPODgraphic's picture


tIPODgraphic's picture

I am usuary of the PC since I went to this of
the microcomputers. First I had a spectrum 128
(although always I dreamed about commodore 64...
soon I dreamed about a friend 500 :P).

I have worked with mac and I think that except
for some differences they are almost the same.
Use my PC to design and the programs are such
in both platforms. If somebody sees abysmal
differences it is that it has a fluid mentality

The only reason by that I reframe to me
to buy mac whenever I update my PC is that
servants RIP of the presses are all mac. Due
to this and to filosofia (radical) of MAC
servants RIP understand better documents
created in MAC.

Dream with the day in which the OS X can install
in a PC, or its defect, that MAC lowers the
prices of their computers until the level of a PC
any. Please, we do not compare the prices of a
MAC with a DELL, I speak of PC without mark, that
work just as one of mark and you the sums to your

(sorry for my english)
powered by google translator

Soy usuario de PC desde que me pas

anonymous's picture

I'm sorry, but as mac user/owner, who uses a PC at work I must say that comparing a mac to pc is like comparing an Aston Martin to a Ford Focus

Miss Tiffany's picture

Everything old, is new again. The world is awash in a cornucopia of styles. The puppy is chasing his own tail trying to stay ahead of himself, or to catch himself, depending on how you look at it. It almost seems a waste of time to discuss something looking dated.

Joe Pemberton's picture

Graham, thanks for the corrections on both counts.

Re: Apple's new chrome logo
I had a good laugh at Christopher's comment. "What can
chrome do for you?" As if Apple needs a swoosh to be a
modern company. But why are you all acting surprised?
This isn't news, it's their status quo.

The fact that Apple is going with a chrome logo is nothing
new. It is true to what they've always done on both their
hardware and software sides.

Hardware: Beige boxes had the rainbow. The blue and white
boxes got a transparent blue plastic apple. The recent
PowerBooks have solid white ones.

Software: Mac OS 7 had a rainbow "Apple Menu" logo. Mac
OS X has a blue plastic looking logo. The new one
apparently will look like chrome instead of plastic.

Re: The logo changes in general. Does Burton still change
theirs annually? That's something IBM and FedEx can't do.
Kudos to them for knowing how to break the rules.

Syndicate content Syndicate content