Google Updating Its 'G' Icon For the First Time In 10 Years

Google is updating its iconic 'G' logo for the first time in 10 years, replacing the four solid color sections with a smooth gradient transition from red to yellow to green to blue. "This modernization feels inline with the Gemini gradient, while AI Mode in Search uses something similar for a shortcut," notes 9to5Google. The update has already rolled out to the Google Search app on iOS and is in beta for Android. From the report: It's a subtle change that you might not immediately notice, especially if the main place you see it is on your homescreen. It will be even less noticeable as a tiny browser favicon. It does not appear that Google is refreshing its main six-letter logo today, while it's unclear whether any other product logos are changing. In theory, some of the company's four-color logos, like Chrome or Maps, could pretty easily start bleeding in their sections.

The fonts

[ArchieBunker]

Whatever font google is using for text keep getting worse and worse. Loopy and unbalanced, not aesthetically pleasing at all.

Re:

[RonVNX]

So, it's just like their products. Getting worse and worse.

Rookie Mistake!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never use a gradient in a logo. Makes it less portable to all mediums and color depth.

Re:

[JBlaze03]

Its all part of the "be more evil" direction the company is taking.

So what?

[Auchmithie]

This happens because designers get employed, then have to make work for themselves. Does this change matter? No. Does it change functionality? No Will most people notice? No. Will this improve the usefullness of anything - such as the worsening results from google search. No. So what if a logo hasn't changed in 10 years? Instead of spending money on trivia, spend the money on improving services.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Indeed you may think so at first, and you'd actually be wrong. The subtle refreshing of logos actually has an impact on customer perception, which is precisely why companies do branding adjustments.

Re: So what?

[paul_engr]

Thanks for the important correction, asshat

Re:

[PsychoSlashDot]

This happens because designers get employed, then have to make work for themselves. Does this change matter? No. Does it change functionality? No Will most people notice? No. Will this improve the usefullness of anything - such as the worsening results from google search. No. So what if a logo hasn't changed in 10 years? Instead of spending money on trivia, spend the money on improving services.

I hear you.

If I was in a position of authority at a company like this and someone came up to me and said "if you give me some money, I'll change the shape of your logo", there's no way I'd agree.

I can understand if a company is rebranding due to merger or splitting or other major event, or if the logo ends up aligned with some future unfortunate urban slang. Otherwise... my answer is "or, I could just keep the money and leave the shape as it is. Sounds better to me, in fact."

Re:So what?

[ZombieDonut]

As the spouse of a designer who has been on numerous re-brand, better brand, update the brand etc. campaigns I can tell you that the decision doesn't come from designers. The design team will literally be swamped with managing every existing product launch, update, news cycle, etc. Their design team doesn't need to find work, I bet money on that, but someone else thought this was an important move and thus a re-design happens.

All the frutiger aero videos on Youtube

[xack]

Convinced the designers at Google to try and make a false nostalgia for an internet that no longer exists. Just like there is pre nuclear bomb steel at the bottom of oceans, people are looking for pre AI websites to preserve.

And.. This is what counts as news?

[xeos]

Gosh, remember when things of import actually happened in the tech world and not just graphical redesigns?

Re:

[Powercntrl]

Gosh, remember when things of import actually happened in the tech world and not just graphical redesigns?

Slashdot has always had its slow news days.

"Branding"

[dsgrntlxmply]

Another foul neologism. All it makes me think of is: Branded [youtu.be]

Re:

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

It's a rite of passage and ego play and someone always has their eye on customizing the logo ha ha you know what I mean? We're all experts in fields that look easy. I've seen boardrooms of a few different industries and it looks like pure human nature to me. We can all agree they don't need to change it, so then why did they actually do that dance? They usually know someone that you know, can work on the design. Pretty common. Google? Yeah, they're not beyond those foibles. Lets face it someone had to do t

Tech Pride Baby!

[TheWho79]

Without trying to gin up controversy, sure looks pretty close to a rainbow to me. I like it!

Reminds me of Compaq Computer

[Tony Isaac]

Their original logo was the word Compaq, all black. After spending millions on a new lock for their logo, they changed it to...red.

Whatever you think of Google's new logo, you can bet they spent a pretty penny deciding on the new look.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

So many cool tech logos ruined by suits. The classic Sun Microsystems logo, the classic Silicon Graphics logo, and not even NetBSD was safe. It's difficult to even find a high res copy of the old NetBSD logo. https://virtuallyfun.com/2013/... [virtuallyfun.com]

How about an E

[DeadBeef]

They should have changed it to an E as in their new defacto slogan, "Be Evil".

FInally!

[warp_kez]

They are adding the horns and pitch fork.

It's ugly

[Schoenlepel]

I think the current one is nice and clean. The new one is ugly beyond belief.