I have qualms about the Octocat mark though. Everyone wants to be Apple and drop their name in favor of a recognizable logo. What people forget is that the logo for Apple is actually an apple. That's what made it so easy for Apple to adopt this strategy early on. The same approach can work for companies that have a massively recognizable brand and an advertising budget dedicated to burning the icon into our retinas (Nike). But it still requires having a memorable mark.
For applications of the logo where scale comes into play, GitHub's designers clearly haven't reviewed their branding 101 coursework. Read Paul Rand's IBM style guide for a refresher on the 8-stripe and 13-stripe versions of his logo. The applications they show on their site at 30x30px and lower are barely readable.
But it turns out to be only a coincidence.
That's unfortunate, because on https://github.com/logos the only recommended use for the mark is in social buttons, which are going to be relatively small.
Even at larger sizes, the tentacle just seems tacked on.
The small sizes don't have to convey that the tail is a tentacle, they just have to convey "GitHub".
Nice work on this one. It may not be the perfect symbol, but it is uniquely and definitively github.
The purple space background was designed by an illustrator here at GitHub and I just put it to use. That the page ended up being purple and blue like Bootstrap is kind of just a coincidence. Previously the Enterprise site's background was a custom-made OS X ish space background—lots of blue and gold.
Beyond that I don't see a huge concern of the two looking similar. Bootstrap 3's homepage will be massively different from v2s today if it helps though.
Please don't do these things:
- Create a modified version of the Octocat or GitHub logo
Do they have something against the Octodex?
The most relevant one:
"Q: Can I submit an octocat to the Octodex?
We make quite a few octocats here at GitHub. Since they probably wouldn't be seen by more than a few people internally, we created the Octodex as a way to show them to the world. Everything on this list is official GitHub artwork and is under GitHub's trademark license, so we only include submissions from people affiliated with GitHub."
And their quality is indeed very high.
Since others might be wondering about the implications of what you quoted:
"Q: Can I make my own octocat?
So long as it is created for personal/fan use, you are more than welcome to create and display your own octocat. If you choose to distribute your octocat, you may not do so with a license, Creative Commons or otherwise, that allows modification or distribution of the octocat."
/ | \
GitHub ??? ???
OctoCat Enterprises, Inc.
/ | \
GitHub ??? ???
The type was so terrible on it.
It's similar to "Perl" and "perl": http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#Whats-the-difference-b...
I'm trusting that these copyright/design right concerns have been contemplated at least - not least because of the similarity in name as well as in design.
(See the google images link for a collection of octonauts: http://goo.gl/Xek21)
While I am not a lawyer, I do not think there is very much similarity between the two. Github's Octocat is half-octopus, half-cat. The Octonauts are 8 nautical animals (including an octopus and a cat).
Old : http://drupal.org/files/images/gist.png
New : https://gist.github.com/assets/modules/header/github-gist-lo...
Quick, find a way to make this about you.
Logo looks cool, where's the new favicon? ;)
That...thing...doesn't really do much for me as far as a corporate logo goes. Rather complex shape (see references to scaling problems), sorta catish but not, WTH is that weird tail (cat, four legs and a...), this post is the first reference to "octo" I've seen in the months I've used the service, there's 5 limbs not 8, etc. Makes me think of a little kid in a Halloween costume.
"Github" name works fine. "Git" spoofs "get" a la archiving, "hub" is central connector/repository, concatenated the name just rolls off the tongue and instantly works as a coined term. Rendered in a nice unique font, great. But then there's that creature...
I've always figured it fits because: 1) The internet likes cats. 2) Git can do octopus merges I guess?
The Github for Android logo is amongst those too http://octodex.github.com/droidtocat/
"git" can mean anything, depending on your mood.
- random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not
actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a
mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant.
- stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the
dictionary of slang.
- "global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actually
works for you. Angels sing, and a light suddenly fills the room.
- "goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks
And that's why git's awesome.
Compare and contrast: http://imgur.com/hdcz2Sd
(Top: Botanika, middle: GitHub, bottom: Secca)
Were you involved in the design process? How was Apex selected? It’s not a particularly well-known font and it’s for sale at very few places.
Pretty subtle logo change really.
I may be reading too much between the lines, but thy post, and the logo-page, are corporate, goal driven projects (maybe top down) that are then wrapped up in nice fluffy words.
Its not the same as nice fluffy ideas, getting thrown out and tested, with maybe as much attention from lawyers as aspell.
Of course it happens, but this is the time github went from that nice sparky startup, to the long slide into corporate beige.
In many ways its a triumph, startups just don't succeed like this. And I would wish success and money and more success on them all - but my antennae twitched.
Still paying monthly for it though. Octocat will cry all the way to the bank
The only difference between a sell-out and a not-sell-out is the presence of a buyer. That's it.
How you treat your customers and your employees, the work you put into your products, and the service and loyalty that you engender in continued business is all that matters. GitHub does all those things extraordinarily well, and more.
Changing a typography and logo a tiny bit signifies nothing more than they wanted to change their brand's typography and logo a tiny bit.
Providing the usage scenarios for their marks is not needed at worst, and really useful at best.
Come on, they are at an inflection point that has ruined many many other companies before - and I want this one to succeed.
Bitter because I did not do it back in 2006? Nah- the litany of "if only" is boring even if I am the one saying it.
Negativity. Well ok, yes but that's what the pills are for
But I read an outsourced rebranding that came in nicely wrapped up, even with legalese in appendix A. And then octo-goodness sprinkled on top. This does not feel like a move and an announcement with GitHub DNA at is heart. It feels added on. Done well, but my antennae twitched.
The move from scrappy startup to 100m in funding is fantastic - real poster-boy stuff. But losing your identity in that move, what makes that team great, is so common it should have a name.
I want Preston-Warner et al to succeed. I want them to leap the chasm into a functioning corporate body that does whatever they have planned. But this one feels like the huge difficulties in running a fast growing high profile company might just be stretching them. I don't know - all I have are inferences and hunches. Maybe they have time each day to think and ruminate on what GitHub needs to become, have time for creativity. Or maybe they run from one to another meeting exhausted at days end. Who knows.
But like I said, if they even read this, they can wipe the tears away with bunches of Benjamin's. good for them, good luck. Think of it commenting on growing pains, not diagnosing terminal cancer
Anti-corp agita? I used to take over the college buildings in student protests, then sit up all night arguing market driven solutions beat socialism everytime.
I can assure you, your read is wrong. This work was done by GitHubbers collaboratively and painstakingly.
Good luck with the rebrand and the (I suspect) avalanche of new stuff to be doing.
And yes that's rose tinted glasses perhaps.
Yeah, maybe a little.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Drew Houston ought to be feeling great right about now.
The overall homepage though I think looks nothing like Bootstrap's docs, if that's what you're implying. Also, Bootstrap, and GitHub, was not influenced by Dropbox. We just iterated on that stuff internally in a pull request and shipped when we were happy with it.
Either way, I don't think it matters. It looks good and clean.
Not trying to be critical by the way. I'm a huge fan of every company/framework/person etc mentioned here. I'm just really interested in the form, function and messaging of homepages.