f o nt sinuse .

co m

http://fo ntsinuse.co m/uses/2007/the-new-micro so ft-lo go

The New Microsoft Logo

The old tech giant f reshens up, but still looks like a f ollower.
Today, Microsof t announced a new logo using Segoe . It is their f irst logo change since 1987 and it certainly f eels f resher than their aging mark in Helvetica Bold Italic. T he typef ace choice could be considered quite f itting. It f ollows the visual identity that Microsof t already established in their products and marketing f or years, and it ref lects the style of typography that is at the core of their Windows Phone and Windows 8 (f ormerly Metro) operating systems. But I think its the wrong choice. Or maybe the right one, but several years too late.

Mic ro s o ft Wind o ws 8 re p re s e nts a d ramatic c hang e fro m p re vio us Wind o ws ve rs io ns . Its b uilt aro und a s imp le layo ut o f tile s and the Se g o e WP typ e fac e .

Segoe is a typef ace that is clearly inspired by Adrian Frutigers landmark 1975 design f or the Charles de Gaulle Airport signage. Some (including the European Union) say Segoe is too similar to Frutiger, earning it the same derision that Arial gets f or its similarity to Helvetica: Microsof ts poor replication of a typef ace they didnt want to pay f or. Perhaps its a hair-splitting rebuttal, but Segoe is not a Microsof t design or commission it was an existing Monotype typef ace that Microsof t licensed. But whatever the legal and ethical considerations, I have more respect f or Segoe as a design than Arial. It doesnt f orce itself into Frutigers metrics (letter widths and spacing) and designer Steve Matteson incorporated changes that especially in the UI and WP variations make sense f or their intended use.

T he problem with the new Microsof t logo isnt really that Segoe is an unoriginal typef ace, its that Segoe makes f or an unoriginal identity. Last year, Sam Berlow noticed how a trip through the mall has become a monotonous typographic experience. A similar cloud of unif ormity has now descended over the landscape of mainstream technology, which is now a f ield of brands set in Humanist type. Over ten years ago, Apple shif ted away f rom its condensed IT C Garamond to Myriad, Robert Slimbachs interpretation of the Frutiger model. (Adobe also uses Myriad quite of ten, although a new identity f ace was announced in 2009.) T here are signs that Myriad is growing stale in Cupertino Helvetica is gradually becoming Apples f irst choice on the screens of its devices, and we could see it replace Myriad in their marketing as well but f or now, it is clearly the f ace of Apple. And to most viewers, Myriad and Segoe are essentially the same thing. Of course, there is more to a visual brand than the typef ace. How Microsof t uses Segoe can determine its personality. Looking at the homepages of Microsof t and Apple one sees some obvious dif f erences: Microsof t is wisely echoing the Metro UI, predominantly white type aligned to the sides and corners of brightly colored boxes, while Apple f loats black Myriad in spare white backgrounds in the same tried-and-true way it has done f or over a decade. Still, the implementation isnt enough to propel Microsof t as a recognizable brand. T heir homepage is f airly dull, almost like a stock web template. And while I commend the daring simplicity of the symbol in the new logo (a welcome attitude in the wake of recent gradients and drop shadows), it has the same ef f ect as the website design: so basic its banal.

Main imag e ry fro m the c urre nt ho me p ag e s o f Mic ro s o ft.c o m and Ap p le .c o m: typ o g rap hic b ro the rs .

Some comments on the Monotony of Retail article suggested that Sams call f or variety was missing the point. T he goal of a major consumer brand isnt to grab the publics attention, or even to distinguish oneself . T he goal is to make shoppers f eel comf ortable. Familiarity breeds trust. Two or three years ago, I would have said this approach f alls in line with Microsof ts culture and identity: trying so hard not to of f end that the result is bland, routine, expected. But ever since they f irst revealed Metro, a UI design language that is truly innovative and new, I got the f eeling Microsof t was making a real ef f ort to be a leader. Yet, in using a Frutiger-esque typef ace f or their logo and visual identity, they simply resume their position as a f ollower, appearing (in spite of their innovations) many years behind the curve.