The economy must be worse than we imagined if Adobe has to resort to having first-year typography students design the logo for their new product line. I mean, really, what's the deal with the new logo? Is it a 4 with an Elvis hair cut? A face? Is the CS spitting out the 4 (or, goodness forbid, throwing it up?) Why is Adobe, a company that makes kick-ass design products, entirely constipated when it comes to branding its own products?
First there were the poorly-executed periodic table of elements logos and now this. Seriously, I feel that this new logo just does not reflect the ridiculous amount of hard work that the various teams are putting into these products.
Please, Adobe, hire a design firm so that CS5 actually reflects the amazing products that you make.
Also, it appears that Adobe's Screw Britannia program is still going strong. While our cousins across the pond will be buying CS4 Master Collection for $2,499, we're going to be paying over $1,000 more + VAT for the same thing (£1,969 + VAT or about $3,647.11 + VAT, according to xe.com).
It seems that every year or so we start bitching about the same three things — these are not great traditions to have and Adobe can and should tackle these issues as I am sure that it is harming them more than anything else. These are:
- The Annual MAX Speaker Expenses Bitch Fest. Solution: Either pay expenses for all community speakers or don't "invite" community speakers. Either will solve the problem. (By community speakers, I mean speakers who don't work for huge companies that pay their way to attend/speak.)
- The Semi-Annual New Product Logo and Icon Cringe-Fest. Solution: Hire a big shot design firm. Or steal a few from Apple.
- The Bi-Annual "We're Getting Screwed Here" Rally. Solution: Scrap geographical pricing. Make people feel that they're getting a fair deal. Understand that the Internet is a single market. The long-term brand damage of this geographical pricing policy is not worth the short-term gains, if any.
Now that that's all out of the way, I have to say that I'm ridiculously excited about the CS4 products and I can't wait to get my hands on these new puppies.
Right after I publish this, I'm going to head to the gate and board a plane to Amsterdam for the CS4 launch. Can't wait! See you guys in Amsterdam!
The Is Adobe taking the piss? Unimpressed with the new CS4 logo. article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
Great post Aral, now all we have to do is sit back and wait for someone from Adobe to comment that they’re actually losing money on creative suite and its never been profitable ;)
In all seriousness, the geographical pricing situation is getting out of control — you can’t attribute this just to different tax situations in different countries. Even when you don’t get the box shipped to you and just download the software this gets enforced. Would love to hear a credible argument why this is still the case.
Hey Aral, I think you’re missing the genius of the approach here. What Adobe is saying with their new logo is that, by using their software, any first year design student can create a corporate identity with little more than some badly laid out type and a couple of photoshop filters/actions. It may not be a good logo, but with Photoshop it’s very easy to produce.
Completly agree to this, Aral. Great post and as often you summarise it very well!
This really is a joke of a logo … is it really the official logo? I’d seen it before but just assumed it was some ‘in-house’ logo knocked up by a ‘World of Warcraft’ playing, Fantasy Art lovin’, wannabe designer with too much time on his/her hands in-between compiling Java scripts. Really, this makes the London 2012 logo look like a work of high-art.
Also, the price …. I know what you mean. I’ve been tossing and turning at night wondering just how I’m going to be able to afford to buy CS4 and if it’s going to be possible (and viable) to get together with a few like-minded folk to buy a multi-user license. If anyone knows if there is a way to save money this way I’d like to hear it and get in touch if you’re interested in sharing the money-love. Aral? You interested?
Adobe, why not cut some costs by losing the packaging and lower the price of your software to something that the small-business man can afford … we don’t need the disk and we don’t need the plastic!
The geographical pricing situation is ridiculous. I recently blogged about how it’s cheaper to fly to the USA from Britain, buy the Master Collection there, have a nice meal, stay the night, see the sites and pay VAT on the way home and still have change left over from the UK price.
From a British developer’s point of view, the solution is simple: don’t buy Adobe products. Use FlashDevelop to create Flex applications for example. For a designer, it’s not so easy though, since Adobe’s designer tools are so much better than the alternatives.
Of course it should be pointed out that you are being the world’s biggest hypocrite here Aral. On the one hand, you complain about Adobe’s pricing. Yet they dangle the opportunity for you to indulge in a bit of self-gratification and promotion by speaking at the CS4 launch, and you are eating out of Adobe’s hand. If you really had the conviction of your complaint over price, you’d have told them publicly that they could stuff their product launch until they sorted the price out.
Hey Aral,
yeah it’s weird that one huh?
And yes still weird about geographical pricing. I refuse to buy Adobe software in the UK now, but most of us aren’t lucky enough for the occasional transatlantic trip. Although to be honest, the money you’d save would pretty much pay for your flights!
Speaker expenses? Sigh, well I just kicked up that one again http://www.sebleedelisle.com/?p=229 and the ensuing discussion over on Ted’s blog http://www.onflex.org/ted/2008/09/max-2008-speaker-benefits.php – the conclusion? “Maybe next time”. Let’s just hope they remember all of this bad publicity next time they have to make a financial decision. Otherwise we’ll have to make more bad publicity next time. I MEAN IT ADOBE! ;-)
As for the logo? Well out of the three, that’s the one I can live with. Sure it’s crap, but at least the software is good. And it’s not as bad as the London 2012 logo ;-)
Seb
Yeah. The geographical pricing is ridiculous. Formerly, Adobe have claimed this be due to many things and none of them hold up:
- Maintaining an overseas presence: Not valid. If Adobe Europe requires more money than the US counterpart to run their business, then do something about it. It should be totally possible to run the local offices from the European sales only. If not, something is wrong with the organization. Fix it and don’t blame the European Adobe employees. They sell the product just like their US counterparts.
-Fluctuations in the currencies: Not valid. Set the price right and adjust it if it needs to be done. That’s how the world market works.
- Extra marketing costs: Not valid. If the European marketing sells less products than the US marketing – fix it. It still sells products, just as the US counterpart, so no premium should be added.
- Extra shipping: Valid, but only to a limited extent. If all copies of the CS4 software HAVE to be printed in the US, a small premium may be added. Other companies make sure they print their software closer to the market…
- Different market strengths: Somewhat valid. In many countries across the world, the average salary is different from the US. Price these markets right, but keep all developed countries at the same price.
I’d really like to see some Adobe employees comment on this. The internet is the market, not the US, Asia, Europe or any other region.
J
I think you’re all missing the point about the UK pricing. David Arno was very close though.
According to an unofficial Adobe source, this is all about customer service. When you order the Creative Suite, Adobe take your order very seriously. They want you to receive the product – so they assign one of their ‘delivery personnel’ to the account. This individual takes full responsibility for your order; it is locked in a case which is in turn locked to the delivery personnel’s wrist. They then travel across the atlantic, carrying your product securely with them at all times. Of course, when they arrive in the UK they need a meal and to stay the night… they then travel to your door, push it through the letterbox and return back to the States, to the depot. So David, you were really close – except it all happens in reverse.
So instead of complaining, your chests should swell with pride and admiration for a company that is prepared to go to such lengths… just for you.
Jamie.
We may live in ‘Rip-off Britain’* but Adobe’s international pricing policy is nothing short of racketeering. Shame on them, and shame on their dire CS4 logo.
* © Daily Mail
@Jamie Badman: now I know that, I’ve placed my order already! ;)
Aral, I think you summarised that poorly… I could have done much better than that in my first year of typography ;-)
J/k, I think you said what a lot of us think, or are going to think… One would really expect a lot more from Adobe.
“It seems that every year or so we start bitching about the same three things ”
1. Don’t support Max, Don’t attend, don’t speak.
2. I’m not keen on the logo, that said I don’t feel as strongly about it.
3. Never buy from the UK. Just import the products from the states, then go out and have a few expensive meals and piss ups ;)
I find the logo strikingly appropriate. Clearly the CuStomer is taking it up the S. Rotate 90 degrees for an even better view!
Oh well, Apple is also good in ripping of non-American customers too. A litle while ago they corrected the pricing a tid-bit.
I could care less about the logo. You guys need more problems in life if that’s your big upset of the day. :) Sucks about the price though.
Oh my!
Just went to the UK store and the download version costs MORE than shipping it to your house!!
https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/index.cfm?store=OLS-UK&view=ols_prod&category=/Applications/FlashP&distributionMethod=FULL&nr=0
It has to be an error…
Other than that:
1) Don’t care about the logo, although i don’t like it.
2) As previously said, ignore MAX.
3) I’m traveling to California at the end of October, I’m considering buying a Flash CS4 license there for 300 pounds instead of 575 for buying it in the UK.
The reason the downloaded price costs more is because Adobe’s download servers are in Ireland, meaning you have to pay 19% VAT, whereas if you get the boxed version and have it shipped to you, it’s shipped within the UK, meaning 17.5% VAT.
LOL “a 4 with an Elvis hair cut” … thanks for the laugh
I find the new logo reminiscent of the old AW Maya logo… I figured that was their inspiration. I hope they keep the periodic table icons for the apps though – so easy to tell apps apart at a glance, even with small icon sizes.
Having thought about it some more, would the logo affect how many people buy CS4 software? Would anyone here not get any of them based on the logo alone? My guess is no. Most of us will buy it, some will probably acquire a hooky copy off their mates, and no one will bother looking at the logo once it’s installed. As for the price, I’m guessing it will increase some of the latter people over the former, at least for the UK.
Agree what a horrible logo and again terrible pricing for European customers.
why do you guys think its ugly. I think both their previous logo, and the new ones are very nicely done.
When you add all the possible colours in your palette and make up a picture, that is not always a creative picture.
What adobe trying is how powerful the new softwares are, and how “simply” you can get your work done. Simple and Sleek is great.
call me crazy, but is the 4 fingering the cs?
i agree with keith that at the end of the day its just a logo…
there are so many new features and in my opinion more pertinent issues to discuss..
Here’s the agency that did the main cs4 campaign.
http://www.vasava.es/
I like it.. At least it doesn’t conform to other corporate branding styles.
i’m sick of this constant program upgrade bullshit. an updated program years ago was quite a dramatic change. now it’s just a few extra features after just managing to get the bugs out of the previous version with patches. i run a bureau so obviously have to keep forking out for every new software program. not to mention my dismay of the buy up and shelving of freehand by adobe a few years ago. no competition means no options. kinda reminds of the stranglehold quark had before indesign came along.
Yes the logo isn’t the ‘wisdom’s last shot’ but it could be much more worse! Why not try to make a better one instead of complaining?! What would be a good design in your opinion? I liked the ‘chemical formula’ logos of CS4! :)
I had to make fun of the logo:
http://tinyurl.com/see-us-fore
If it was Glaser or Rand commenting on the work, I’d think higher of the comments, but when it’s a bunch of developers and pseudo-designers commenting poorly on the work, the criticism falls short of having any merit… What’s the saying about those who live in glass houses, and stone-throwing, etc?
Let’s face it, developers aren’t the best visual designers by any stretch. How many people commenting here have ever had the challenge of designing any sort of corporate mark that would be seen (and potentially mocked?) on a global scale?
As a designer, I’ll keep my comments on crappy programming to myself, because I couldn’t begin to program squat… It’s not in my skill set, so I don’t pretend to be a master of a trade in which I know nothing about. How would YOU fit together a C, S, and a 4? They’re really pain in the ass forms to structure together nicely, and I’m sure the logo was finalized by “design by committee” by the client and their 4-year-old daughter’s doll’s preference. *shudders* That’s how it works guys, but let’s keep throwing rocks, ’cause it’s FUN.
I think the real challenge would be for all of us to sit down and see what we could come up with for a decent CS4 logo and submit it to Adobe. For all the folks saying “it looks like a peepee stuck in a weewee!”, grow up guys, are we on the playground?
I also know for a fact that Vasava was NOT the agency responsible for the campaign.
Aral, shame on you. If I were Adobe, I would boot your ass off the stage talking about the hand that feeds like that.
Why can’t we buy the us versions at us price ?
Or should we buy box-versions through amazon US ? (great for the planet !)
The minimum act would be a public/official response (not an email to some people, or an opinion or conjecture on an employee’s blog) with comments enabled !
On our side, to change their decision, can we have a pricing-dedicated-logo somewhere on influencial bloggers sites (sorry i’m not one). It would be – maybe – more effective than a petition (remember CS3 petition) ? The new logo could be a good start…
@Matt : We live in a democracy. We all have the right to place our comments on anyones work, especially those that influence us, such as Adobe. Most developers have an idea of what works and what doesn’t, even if they can’t produce it themselves. Some of them have far more design experience than you know. I myself have a degree in Visual Communications as well as five years college experience in illustration. Would you say I don’t know what I’m talking about? How about Keith Peters? And we all know Aral understands design (he owns a Mac ;-)). Okay, so Zarate might not know much about it (sorry Juan ;-) j/k), but I’m sure that’s not the norm.
As for coming up with an alternative; the guy that made that design was paid to do so. I personally have no time for “freebies” as I have more important things to do with my spare time, such as chastising you for chastising us for chastising Adobe…. Ahem!
@David Arno:
You seem to misunderstand the difference between having an opinion and boycotting something.
I do not agree with geographical pricing for software in general and thus it is my opinion that Adobe should not continue on this path. I write this because I actually care about what Adobe does and I care about the future health of the company and its products. And, since I am independent, and not employed by Adobe, I can air my views as I see fit.
Calling me “the world’s biggest hypocrite” is simply comical in its hyperbole. I neither “divulge in self-gratification” nor require the self-promotion. Needless to say, I categorically reject your assumptions. I wasn’t pimping CS4 at the event.
The black-and-white type of thinking that your comment betrays is actually quite dangerous and leads to the “with us or against us” doctrine so common in absolutist thought. I love and use Adobe’s various products. I care. And I have every right to air my opinions, even if they don’t agree with Adobe’s policies, without boycotting their products. The suggestion that one should lead to the other is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy.
A better example of hypocrisy would be, for example, speaking of your apparent dislike of self-promotion in a blog comment while at the same time linking to an article on your own blog to promote yourself.
There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between my dislike of a policy by Adobe and my accepting to speak at two User Group events organized and hosted by the developer and designer communities in the Netherlands and Belgium; two groups that I absolutely adore and have spoken at numerous times previously and will speak at again.
@Matt:
From your comment, I initially thought that you work for Adobe (do you?) Were you somehow involved in the design of the CS4 logo? You then mention that “we” should submit alternative designs to Adobe so I might be mistaken on that front.
Your argument is that design may only be judged by designers. This is patently false. Design is judged by the unwashed masses that you appear to despise so much. And the design of the CS4 logo is being mocked by designers, developers, and laymen alike because — quite plainly — it is horrendous. I’ll go even further: it is so bad that it is disrespectful of the hard work that the product teams have put into CS4 and does not reflect the production values of the suite. It is detracting from products themselves. That is bad design. And you don’t have to “fit together” the letterforms in weird and wonderful ways for it to be well-designed — it would have been far better to set the logo in a single typeface and let it recede in its simplicty instead of attracting such unwanted attention (unless the design brief was to make the logo so bad that it would result in controversy and thus attract attention to the product — in which case, it has worked splendidly!)
If you are indeed a designer, may I ask what you design? As you apparently do not know/understand programming, I assume you are a graphic designer. (Web designers design for a medium that includes programming and must be at the very least aware of and understand the characteristics of their medium, if only to appreciate its limits.)
“Design by committee” is not design and, if that’s what happened, than that’s where Adobe went wrong and that’s what needs to be fixed.
Finally, about your final comment, which was: “Aral, shame on you. If I were Adobe, I would boot your ass off the stage talking about the hand that feeds like that.”
I really hope that you don’t work for Adobe because if you do, and if this is the general way of thinking at Adobe, I fear that you guys are slipping further and further away from understanding your community. I do not work for Adobe. Adobe is not the “hand that feeds” me. And it’s very much my right to air my opinions about something I care about. In fact, the time to be afraid is when people don’t do that. That’s when they’ve stopped caring.
What you need is honest feedback from people who care about your products. You should encourage and support an atmosphere where your community feels free to provide that feedback, even (and especially) when that feedback is negative. Otherwise, locked in your Elite Designers Club Room, you stand to lose touch with reality and the CS5 logo may end up looking like two llamas eating a watermelon.
Your comment is also misinformed about how these things work: the user group meetings are organized by the community. Adobe does not own the community. Adobe does not buy the community. Adobe cannot boot anyone off a user group stage.
Calm yourself Aral, put that whip away ;)
Upgrade from CS3 Design to CS4 $895AU / $599US. The exchange rate puts it at $715AU. I bought CS3 to get in the upgrade cycle but at that price what is the point of staying legit. It’s an insult. A quick look at the meagre improvements / bug fixes indicates i’ll sit this one out and the logo looks like a crappy Maya ripoff
@Lee: But I like my whip. It’s a lovely whip. His name is Ronald :P
@Luke:
“what is the point of staying legit”
Now hang on people. The geographical price difference is obviously outrageous, fully agreed. But I cannot understand how anybody here can have a moan about how much CS4 costs or how much the upgrade fee is.
If you’re doing Flash work professionally, which I’m sure applies to plenty of people here, it’s your tool of the trade. Let’s say I’m a Flash freelancer living in the UK, so I can command a fee between £200 and £400 a day, for arguments’ sake. Minus tax that still means what? 2 or 3 days’ work to pay for the application that you probably use 75% of your working day.
If your professional career is any longer than a few months, you’re likely to own a version of Flash from before (what Juan, you ain’t got one?? ;-)). The upgrade is £139 + VAT, and is valid even if you only have a copy of Flash MX! No need to travel to the US for that, is there.
Jeez…
@Lee,
Aral certainly did flay about with gay abandon there didn’t he :)
@Aral,
I completely disagree with you. I’d prefer not to get into a public slanging match here though by replying. If I bump into you at FotB, I’ll see if we can organise continuing the discussion over a beer ;)
@David : I can picture us all arguing in a drunken stupor at the myHotel (or whatever it’s called).
Back @ Aral:
I work for Adobe no more than you do.
I don’t that design should be judged by designers alone. But personal preference and opinion are just that, and if someone doesn’t “like” something, or even think it’s ugly, that’s one thing. When the conversation goes into talking about form and typography, that isn’t something that the untrained person should have any credentials to criticize. I think your rude comments of “horrendous” etc. are disrespectful of the folks who put the time in to design the mark, if you’re so worried about respecting time put into the product. I’m sure it was no easy task, or a quick one either. I also don’t think the logo detracts from the product, YOU’RE making it detract from the product by bringing it into the firing line. The logo itself, to my knowledge, hasn’t appeared on any of the actual packaging, am I mistaken?
I’m sure you would set the logo in a single typeface, and more than likely put it on a yellow lined background with a gradient fade into a rotating picture of yourself as well.
As a matter of fact, I am an interactive art director/designer, and although I know enough about programming to know what can be done, it’s a foreign language to me. I can develop enough flash to put a basic site together, but by no means am I any expert to critique the programming to any degree to be as offensive as your post about design has been. I’m sure I know as little about programming as you do about design. I respect my boundaries.
“Design by committee” is the way that the majority of corporate marks are created anymore, due to so many people being asked their opinion on it. I stand behind Adobe’s decision though, because in the end, they were the paying client, and there was a consensus about how they wanted their product displayed. And by the looks of the design, despite everyone’s rude comments, I’m sure the designer was no novice as many claim.
Negative feedback is fine, it’s uncalled-for and disrespectful comments that are what I have a problem with, especially coming from people who mean “I don’t like it”, versus “It is bad design” because I disagree. It’s by far a great mark, but definitely nowhere near “horrendous” or “crap” as everyone so easily tears it down. Comments such as “first year typography” student is a comment by someone who obviously doesn’t know what first-year type student work looks like, and I highly doubt that Adobe would put the design in the hands of an incompetent novice. Much to everyone’s dismay.
You don’t like the logo? Fine. But it seems that you were miffed about the pricing, and decided to further insult it by saying the branding equivalent of “your face is stupid”.
I left off the word “think” after “I don’t” in my previous post. My mistake.
Back @ Lee McColl Sylvester:
Point taken, it is just opinions. And everyone is entitled to theirs. I just think instead of saying “I don’t like it” which is what people mean, they’re bashing “design”, which is a different thing, and I think that unless people actually know what they’re talking about, then “ugly” is fine, but bashing typography is a completely different thing.
And I’m sure some have had visual communication training and know more about what they’re talking about than others, but viscom is a lot different than a strictly “design”-based education, or else “design” would actually be in the description.
It’s fine that designers are bashing the design, and if people want to say “I don’t like it” that’s fine too, but I think people are being quite harsh straight out of the gate. I don’t love it myself, but I also don’t hate it either.
I also don’t think that people would actually take any time to do any “freebies”, my apologies, it was a silly comment. But to bash the actual design, you should have something in mind that you think would work better if you’re willing to tear it down as people have done.
My opinion of the design is..
First impressions where impressive, the logo had a new twisted image for a new release of a creative suite and the glass effect emphasized the purpose of the tool in my mind, we don’t look at glass we see through it, much the way this toolset allows designers to produce the windows the masses will view information of the future through. Regardless of this it consumed but a few seconds as I moved on to drink in the lake of new features.
As for typography I quite enjoy the shapes used for the CS (I’m a fan of suggestive type) but agreeably the 4 is a little oddly placed and heck, we can see already how people’s perception and imagination twist things :P but at least it fits quite nicely.(There’s no such thing as bad press?)
Overall I don’t think it’s too bad a job, I have no certificates to back my knowledge of design or typography, nor proclaim to any such mastery of them, this opinion is based purely upon reflection of the work.
As for pricing :) well I’ll buy it when I make that 200-400 a day you were talking about.
As for the whip named Ronald, erm… I’ve never met one called Ronald.
Interesting place, this blog. Keep it up
@Wolf.
Point taken if you earn those rates. I’m in Australia and don’t. It just seems that the release of cs3.3 a month or so ago (which was just Acrobat 9) was a cynical move to put a release between cs3 and cs4 and therefore charge more.
Personally and for the majority of software a point move is not an upgrade it is a support release. I am a sole trader but do most of my work for a single software company. The boss there curses cs3 on a daily basis for its bugs / issues – I persuaded him to upgrade his master suite so my design suite projects can be sent back and forth. The chances of me doing the same for cs4 are non-existent.
As for slagging off the logo a lot of it is subjective. I suppose I should give them kudos for not going down the uppercase blocky helvetica that is used for every TV branding exercise. At least they stand by their product – plenty of filters on there.
When the 2012 olympics logo was unveiled, I seemed to be the only person who liked it (I’ve since met others, but we are few and far between). And once again, I’m in the minority – I like the CS4 logo. The 4 is prominent, which is important, the fluid cs lettering reminds me of old Macromedia logos, without looking like them. That it forms an image reminds me of old Adobe logos, particularly the Photoshop eye. Finally, it makes me smile. So I like the CS4 logo.
However, I agree wholeheartedly about the geographic pricing and the lack of speaker expenses for max. Both are simply wrong.
@Matt : I also have an A’ Level in Media Studies and a BTEC Diploma in Media Graphics (included Typography)… Lame, I know, but I know how to get my hands dirty with layout paper.
Anyway, that’s besides the point. What is the point is that the logo is lame, and as supporters of Adobe and their software, it is absolutely our place to moan and bitch about it, even if we’re not going to do anything about it. That’s life; especially for us Brits ;). Good design is good design, and bad design is bad, and if we see bad design, then we should all point the finger and bitch like ten year olds ’til someone fixes it :D Then we can pat each other on the backs and grin like Cheshire cats knowing that we pissed someone off enough to actually do something about it.
Okay, let’s look, typographically and design wise, why this is bad.
1. Theres no balance. The top is not balanced with the bottom, the left from the right, or from opposing corners. None of the laws of composition are followed, including the triangle law, the rule of thirds, cross composition, fibonacci spiral or any other rule I’ve ever heard of.
2. The 4 is too straight when compared to the CS, and looks more contrasting due to the lack of composition.
3. The negative space is poorly used, as it feels cluttered and fiddly up top, but stark and bold at the bottom.
And, ways to fix it:
1. Abstract the CS from the 4.
2. Add composition via extra imagery or resizing and positioning what’s already there. Even shading or colouring in some way could help with this.
3. stylise the 4. The fact that it’s a similar, if not the same typeface isn’t helping it, currently. If the 4 were more rounded to match the CS, and perhaps the upper arm was also shaped to sit well in the S, then it might look more pleasing.
4. While making the CS more thick might make it worse, thinning the 4 might actually help a little, as it will take away some of the imbalance. However, doing so will also lose some of it’s impact (and it doesn’t have enough of that to lose). Thinking about it, thickening the CS might work if the CS was also tinted or given relief in some way.
5. Start from scratch ;-)
There are other things that can be done, but those are some.
Why is it black? Doesn’t black belong to Flex?
Matt, I have an MA in Film and Electronic Media where a large number of my courses were design-related. I’ve also taught digital media design at the graduate level. I was actually on the three year MFA program and crafting my own Interactive Design degree before deciding that I’d had enough of academics and left with my two-year MA. During my studies, I took my fair share of typography, graphic design, and interaction design classes. (Let’s forget my practical experience since then and my personal love of typography for the moment). And yes, that includes Typography 101. You’re right, Typography 101 was probably not the best class to compare it to, I’ll write that up to having written the original post in five minutes while waiting to board a plane. I was thinking more of an introductory computer-based design course, the one where you first get to play with type and Illustrator.
Regardless, none of that matters.
To add to Lee’s list:
If we take size to denote importance, than the product comes out as 4 CS. While the visual order of the elements yields a correct reading, the importance placed on the 4 makes the “CS” into nothing more than an embellishment. i.e., I feel that the weights of those two elements are entirely mismatched.
To Aral and Lee,
The last time I used a textbook diagram or grid in a design was, well, when I was face-deep in textbooks. Since then I still use grids to structure things, but I also go with what my eye tells me looks right. It doesn’t always add up, even though the grid may say “bump it up to this edge”. Sometimes you have to fudge a little to get true visual balance. But that’s where someone who is a math-minded programmer first differs from a designer, you see things in a different way. There’s no making you see eye-to-eye with me, or vice versa.
I don’t think design is a science like you’ve seemed to want to debase it to, but rather an art. I think there’s balance that you guys aren’t mathematically seeing, but I’m not going to argue with you anymore, as you’re set in your ways and I really don’t value your opinions, as you don’t mine. Also, I thought they were more guidelines? If all design stuck to rules from hundreds of years ago, we’d never get anywhere, now would we?
That said, I think that comments about the number 4 being superstitious is silly (as read on other blogs… yes, this topic interests me, probably too much), as that is the product. I’m sure Adobe wanted to emphasize the 4 more, as it is an evolution of their series, and the CS has become more of a back-seated item.
I personally don’t think a C, S, and a 4 are ideal characters to feel harmonious in any structure, and for what it is, I think it was a solid use of what was to work with. I also feel that no matter what the designer or Adobe chose in the end, there would be a crowd somewhere with pitchforks ready to tear down “The Thing that is Different or New”.
And when I first saw it, I didn’t see it as a black logo. If you check the http://www.vasava.es work, you’ll see that it’s not a solid structure at all, somewhat transparent. It also gets tinted, and seems to have a chameleon-like nature to it when placed near other work. They also have seemed to fit it better into their layout as more of a water-marked item, versus as large as the sample Aral placed at the top of the page (It does look better smaller than that large).
I hope down the road it grows on people, but I think everyone is bashing it as it’s fresh to everyone. It also may never grow on them, due to first impressions…
I think it’s much more simple and elegant than the CS3 “logo”, which didn’t have as much prominence… The one thing the CS3 logo had going for it, was that the C,S, and 3 are all more similar with rounded curves that flow better. I think “stylizing” a 4 would have given it as bad of reviews since then it wouldn’t read as a “4″. But who am I to know…
In the grand scheme of the campaign (and I assume future work to come?) I don’t see it as the focal point at all, more of an asterisk to say “this is CS4″. It doesn’t seem to be carried over to the packaging, and it will be short-lived I imagine, since I didn’t even know a CS3 logo existed before I looked it up. I will be interested to see what is said of CS5 when it comes about.
WHAT IS GOING ON??!!!
this is literally one of the shittest logos I have ever seen?!!! and from adobe itself???? fucking hell, they done fucked up, they done fucked up baaaaddd!!!
You have to laugh :D
Matt, the difference is that I _do_ value your opinions, I just happen not to share them.
Aral, that was rude of me. Any opinions matter, and yes, we don’t agree one bit.
I still think people are being unduly rude/negative towards it… There is craft in the mark that people are missing. Craft enough that Adobe signed off on it.
I will go ahead and say I’m obviously in the outspoken minority, and I respect the company’s decision to run the logo, and I don’t think it’s a terrible mark. I also commend the design team on their efforts, despite the fury that “The Internet” may bring upon them. It’s so easy for people to throw digital rocks when they are behind a username and, yes, I myself believe that a better mark exists out there… Although I am willing to bet that the majority denouncing Adobe’s logo could do no better themselves. Could I? Doubtful, but I also don’t find the fault in it that others seem to, and I’m not about to cry “I could do better!”
Cheers.
Sometimes there are logos that generally, people just love. Look at the Coca Cola logo. I love it, and so do most, and due to that they’ve not had to update it in years (if they have at all).
>There is craft in the mark that people are missing. Craft enough that Adobe signed off on it.
No, there’s not. I’m a graphic designer with 30 years experience, and I’ve never seen anything this bad make it to the public, (except the 2012 London Olympics logo…)
Fer Chrissakes! It’s a stick figure on its knees, scratching its ass! ;-) (I’m in the US, and agree completely with Aral. Sorry Matt.
I COULD do better, If I really wanted to bother, or was getting paid the several thousands of dollars that the agency who DID do it, got…
Yeah, I’ll design a logo, and submit it to a multi-million dollar company for free…
I didn’t know that bevel/emboss was back in. This logo looks like a pile of Terminator shit. The way that the c and s connect is sloppy and the way that the s wraps around the 4 is a bit off as well. It was as if they were like, “oh, crap, we need a logo!” And then proceeded to take a dump on their Mac desktop. Hire me at a ridiculously overpaid rate and I’ll piss on your keyboards, Adobe. Maybe then your logos might spark a little magic. Or just smell like asparagus.
[...] product for design and development. And apparently, I am not the only one who dislikes the logo. Aral Balkan on his blog also voices his opinions about the new logo, and so do the [...]
[...] CS4 website. It’s still early when it comes to community feedback, but Aral Balkan is quite unimpressed with the new CS4 logotype as well as the geographical pricing. Jen DeHaan was formerly on the documentation team at Adobe. Now she’s published a blog [...]
I’m a bit late to this but I’ve just discovered this whole mess for myself and its damn confusing.
I recently downloaded a trial version of Dreamweaver CS4, It’s great, works well, looks good.
I noticed on the startup window a link to upgrade and save, even from the Macromedia products. Great I thought, so I followed the link and found I could upgrade my Studio MX04 to Web Premium CS4 for $599US which seems pretty good to me.
So I clicked buy now, and went to the store, chose my local store (New Zealand) and clicked go….. except the price showed up as US$770.
Odd I thought, so after circling through the ‘contact us’ pages a couple of times (obviously trying to stop me actually contacting them) I found a New Zealand sales number and gave them a call… (It eventually connected to somewhere that wasn’t New Zealand.)
ME “Hi I have followed the link from Dreamweaver to the upgrade offer but the price shows as US$770 not $US599, I dont understand”
…. 10 minutes of confusion…
ADOBE “No the New Zealand store prices are in US currency, not new zealand currency.”
ME ” oh, ok, but why is’nt it showing US$599 then?”
ADOBE “it is”
ME “no its not”
ADOBE “because it is in US$ in the New Zealand store”
followed by ADOBE CSR probably reading from a standard response in reverse … complete nonsense for 5 minutes.
ME ” Ok yes I understand you don’t support New Zealand currency, I just want to know why the prices are different?”
ADOBE “I cannot discuss that”
ME “thanks”
And so I had my rude awakening to the world of Adobe international pricing. Turns out they want almost $600NZ dollars extra for the same product, downloaded from the same website in the same language.
I would understand this if it was Adobe NZ I was dealing with, but there is NO adobe New Zealand. They don’t even have a single person in New Zealand, not a single NZ based phone number, no office, nothing. They can’t even be bothered using the New Zealand currency on their website.
Not that I have an issue with the lack of local support, its a big wide world, we are a bit isolated down here and we’re used to that…. but we have the internet.
Same store, same support, same product, same currency…. different price?
from the Adobe.com website…. “the only people who really benefit from pirated software are the pirates themselves”
go figure.
[...] might be. I used Google to do a quick image search and found Aral Balkan’s article comparing the uninspired CS4 logo to the work of a first-year Typography student. One commenter [...]