change the ubuntu touch logo
-
No thanks, if you ask me...
-
@herobrine7gamer The new ubuntu logo is very nice, seeing what they just did, I wouldn't change the logo Ubuntu touch has now, but it's up to the people who run UBports.
-
I don't care as long as my phone boots up and has Ubuntu on the splash screen. Sick of all the so called "open-source" Android phones that you can't unlock the bootloader without jumping through hoops.
Oops silly me ranting about things - no I just like seeing Ubuntu on the splash screen as it boots into the operating system. The logo could be a dead crow, as long as it was an Ubuntu dead crow. -
Who cares? Certainly not me.
-
@herobrine7gamer It's kinda nice, it works quite well on smaller sizes.
Aaaand, I wouldn't change the logo (and I don't think we have to)
-
I don't like the new Ubuntu logo (looks like a washing machine). But at least it still contains the Circle Of Friends bit -- therefore I don't see a need for UBports to change any of their logos.
-
There's no need for changing. Another reason for not changing is that we're still on 16.04 and hopefully soon on 20.04 and this version are shipped with the "old" logo
-
Since Canonical are gracefully allowing UBports to use their logo, it's probably up to them to decide whether UBports needs to join them in switching to the new version.
I could imagine them not wanting their old logo to be used anywhere. From a branding point of view, it's important to be consistent. -
Reject modernity.
-
Yes it looks like it is "updated", and that is because
most modern things are soulless representations of their prior art.
Canonical rolled out yet another attempt at recreating itself.It wants to sell you things, and it is a closely knit business-first venture.
It has little to nothing to do with what UBPorts is doing.
It wasn't so much that they tried to find somewhere new to go, they were already there
and the logo didn't match.Their own guidelines say to use colours to represent community. Their colour is orange.
This means the community is around the project, not inside of it. Again a question of alignment.
The newest logo looks looks left-aligned by mistake, which was a smaller problem in the first attempt to recreate it.The square and negative space logo is already out of date.
It is a cheap trick to get as much real-estate out of available (often square) space available.
It works if you can own the colour, and it is a question of making sure "brand awareness" hits often and hard. No elegance to it at all. Not saying it doesn't work, but that is what it is.
Rip away the gimmicks and it is evident how poor an attempt it is.The newest logo has no acuity.
There is now what looks like a compound curve because of the edge smoothing next to the faces, which is the entire thing to avoid in the first place.
This happens when you don't understand design, and you don't understand the design you are working with.
The size diminishes, it is harder to make out, and the air and composition of the elements are now gone.Without the stopgap logo in between, the same generational corruption is now total.
It is pretty bad when a stock-logo when searching for "three people in circle logo" is better than two attempts at changing something that worked.
Logically the next iteration will be three people leaning all the way in for a time-out pep-talk amongst themselves.
That or they understand to make the hands two smaller balls at each side, so it looks like someone is actually holding hands and not hunched over each-other.
Or the circle gets fatter, and it is just cut-outs for heads in two curved cutouts for each head.
Effectively the "hands" just grow, to the same width as the original logo.
My money is on this one since it has even less entropy, and in less than 5 years.
