Wonder how much they paid for that.  And I wonder why it doesn't have the red Adobe A in it.

Such a logo for (and from) someone who is creating products for millions of designers... it's an understatement to say I expected more.

They could have just outsourced it to some of their customers and there's a high degree of probability it would look better. Hell - they could have paid 5$ on fiverr and gotten a better logo.

That's a good logo actually.
It fits into the Adobe brand, much better than the old one.

By the way a logo doesn't need to be made of a icons and symbols.

Logos made out of typography are timeless. Think about it.

Quote from: sweetgirll on June 01, 2016, 17:28

That's a good logo actually.
It fits into the Adobe brand, much better than the old one.

By the way a logo doesn't need to be made of a icons and symbols.

Logos made out of typography are timeless. Think about it.

Right.


Logo, from the greek logos: word, speech (so typography, and not icon or symbol)

Wrong.

If it were directly from the greek it would be logos not logo. Logo is the combining form of the word and was first used in the 1930s in logogram or logotyoe, so either symbol or typography, and subsequently abbreviated to logo.

I am not partially right, I am totally right.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/logo - a more authoritative source on etymology than Wikipedia. You are missing a step in evolution, logo did not come directly from logos but instead from logotype and logogram which themselves used logo- as a loanword. A logo is meant to convey words symbolically: it does not need to be a word itself.

I am more interested, though, on whether it will help sales. Last month Fotolia sales were 5% of SS sales for me and even behind 123RF.

I am not partially right, I am totally right.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/logo - a more authoritative source on etymology than Wikipedia. You are missing a step in evolution, logo did not come directly from logos but instead from logotype and logogram which themselves used logo- as a loanword. A logo is meant to convey words symbolically: it does not need to be a word itself.

I am more interested, though, on whether it will help sales. Last month Fotolia sales were 5% of SS sales for me and even behind 123RF.

I never told that logo came directly from logos. I told that it came from logos. period.
I have also told that the sense of words change in time.
And if you take the composition of logo-type it is logo: word and type: type� (so nothing to do with any graphic symbol).
The fact that today we consider that a logo is a graphic sign (and not only text) is only a diversion from the original sense of the word, precisely due to the changing (evolution) of the meaning of the words.

And maybe the oxford dictionary is a a more authoritative source on etymology than Wikipedia, I could agree with this, but this does not mean that what they say is absolutely right.
By the way your Oxford dictionary gives 2 lines about "Logo" while Wikipedia gives the equivalent of 2 or 3 pages� I don't know which one we can define to be more precise and authoritative (even if the reputation of Oxford is higher that the one of Wiki)�

And to conclude, I have always thought that only arrogant and stupid people think that they are totally right.
So, okay, you are totally right�� (your own words) :p

The old symbol and the green in the old logo always looked off to me, so I'm glad they got rid of that. But to say that this is a major upgrade, no. Rather a lazy one.