
Google Gets A New Favicon, Again. It’s Uh.. Colorful - qhoxie
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/09/google-gets-a-new-favicon-again-its-uh-colorful/
======
mdasen
You know, the big G was recognizable and everyone knew it was Google. Then the
small g came along and Google had this big lengthy explanation on how they
spent month after month trying to come up with what their favicon should be.
And now they just change it again? Because they wanted something less
recognizable?

Everyone knew the big G. Everyone associated it with Google. When you're
Google, it doesn't really matter what your logo is - people use you because
you're good, they just need a mark that they associate with that quality. Only
when you're bad at what you do (yet still need people to think you're good at
what you do) does this sillyness have a lot of meaning.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
I completely agree. The big G was awesome, visible, recognizable, everything a
favicon should be.

I even went out of my way to put it back: <http://foohack.com/2008/06/hacking-
the-google-favicon/>

This one is better than the previous iteration. Not as nice looking, but
easier to pick up in your peripheral vision when scanning a list of tabs.

Favicons don't have to be pretty. But they _do_ have to be recognizable and
distinctive from the bluish gray of a web browser's chrome.

------
jonursenbach
Is it just me, or does this remind anybody else of Windows? Perhaps a ploy to
steal more marketshare away from MS Office and IE users?

~~~
Raphael
Now that you mention it, the logo is eerily similar. It's just rotated 90
degrees with a "g" slapped on top.

------
qhoxie
Official post: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/googles-new-
favicon.h...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/googles-new-favicon.html)

~~~
ionfish
The design that inspired the new favicon is a lot better than the one they
went with in the end.

