

How Google's new Logo is just 305 bytes - nksonfire
http://www.quora.com/How-could-Googles-new-logo-be-only-305-bytes-while-its-old-logo-is-14-000-bytes/answers/15246728?srid=3a0v&share=1

======
flak48
This entire blogpost has sadly been plagiarized from a post by a different
author here : [http://www.quora.com/How-could-Googles-new-logo-be-
only-305-...](http://www.quora.com/How-could-Googles-new-logo-be-
only-305-bytes-while-its-old-logo-is-14-000-bytes/answer/Ilya-
Yakubovich?srid=3a0v&share=1)

Without even a link to or mention of the original source.

~~~
dang
Thanks. We've changed the URL to that from
[http://www.top5techs.com/2015/09/how-googles-new-logo-is-
jus...](http://www.top5techs.com/2015/09/how-googles-new-logo-is-
just-305-bytes.html) and banned that site. I wish we had seen this sooner.

------
alayne
"How an Unvailable Simplified Version of Google's new Logo Could be 305
bytes."

------
adevine
Clearly, though, this is not how Google did it. For example, their blog post,
[https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-
ident...](https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-
identity/#google-g-construction) , states that the upper case G is not just a
circle, but slightly modified to make it more visually appealing.

------
gitdude
Real reason for the redesign. Works for every screen. Loads fast. Aesthetic
component is important but not so important. This is a real marriage of art
and science for logos.

~~~
ionwake
Shame it looks infantile

~~~
smashu
agreed

------
nailer
> While Google hasn't released the optimized 305 byte logo and it doesn't seem
> to be available online, I believe that they got the size down to 305 bytes
> as they claim.

Where do Google claim it is 305 bytes? There's no link provided. AFAICT
there's no references in this article.

~~~
ttkeil
[https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-
ident...](https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-
identity/#broader-distribution)

~~~
nailer
Yeah it looks like the original article that this blog post ripped off
included the link, the spammer just copied the text.

------
xefer
This reminds me of Paul Prescod's article from 2003 which specifically used
Google's landing page as an example of performance improvements that could be
obtained by a judicious use of SVG:

[http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/svg-
prescod.html](http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/svg-prescod.html)

------
ColinCochrane
It's quite interesting to see how the new logo can be deconstructed to simple
shapes.

That said, shouldn't the link be directly to the article instead of through a
URL shortener?

------
moogleii
His final "G" is pretty different from both of Google's new G's.

~~~
bostonpete
Well, he does mention that Google hasn't yet released its 305 byte variant of
the logo, so we don't really have anything to compare it to yet...

~~~
moogleii
I meant it differs visually. I suppose it's possible Google has a different
looking G for a compressed variant, but that would just be even more odd from
a branding perspective.

------
sandworm101
Does the size savings matter in comparison to the effort needed to identify
(URL) and download the file? I mean to say, is this purely an exercise in
graphics optimization or will Google see practical costs savings?

~~~
Bedon292
The savings is for the users who are on extremely low bandwidth systems in
markets they are trying to break into. 305 bytes is going to download a lot
faster than 14kb, which I believe is what they said their old standard logo
was. Even the 2kb svg mentioned in the article would be slower.

~~~
pixl97
Even more important, 305 bytes is only a small part of a packet. Much less
chance of a packet needing retransmitted on a low/poor quality connection.

------
huangc10
I feel like they took something out of this guy's books:
[http://bchanx.com/logos-in-pure-css-demo](http://bchanx.com/logos-in-pure-
css-demo)

------
dchest
Interestingly, the current logo I see on www.google.com is a 14K PNG (the
previous one [from archive.org] was 8K, but lower resolution).

------
chasing
(What's this weird 9m.no redirect?)

~~~
ehamberg
I'm surprised it's still being used (and a mod fixed the link now), but if
you're curious, here's the discussion on 9m.no from 15 months ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7783239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7783239)
:)

