[Redrum]

Stanford has changed its official logo.  Apparently we were not digital friendly.  We spawned Google,  but apparently that was in spite of our digital unfriendliness.  Also,  just like the university in general,  we had a damn-the-cost attitude when producing the old one.  Check it out keeping in mind that the creators of the new logo spent time grokking our architecture to produce the new, a go-go one. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-stanf...Insider%29

[Redrum]

Stanford has changed its official logo.  Apparently we were not digital friendly.  We spawned Google,  but apparently that was in spite of our digital unfriendliness.  Also,  just like the university in general,  we had a damn-the-cost attitude when producing the old one.  Check it out keeping in mind that the creators of the new logo spent time grokking our architecture to produce the new, a go-go one. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-stanf...Insider%29

[FarmBoy]

Booo.

Aside from the fact that I prefer the older look, I don't think you change your brand that's long established. Maybe it's awkward on the iPad, but who know how it will look on the qPad or the Microsoft ZX-3000 or in the telepathic image projector to be developed in 10 year. You shoulding change your branding to support what is like a passing technology.

[FarmBoy]

Booo.

Aside from the fact that I prefer the older look, I don't think you change your brand that's long established. Maybe it's awkward on the iPad, but who know how it will look on the qPad or the Microsoft ZX-3000 or in the telepathic image projector to be developed in 10 year. You shoulding change your branding to support what is like a passing technology.

[jayasena]

I'm not buying the "lines were too thin" argument. Maybe that was an issue a while ago with low-res displays and aliasing, but that should not be a big problem today. I mean, seriously, why won't the logo render on an iPhone when uncle Jobs (bless him) clearly said the iPhone has higher resolution than the human eye can resolve?

Maybe it's the cynic in me but I can't help thinking this is the real reason:

The last logo was Sabon font, and Lapin explained that was expensive to license.

"Lots of units wanted to have it throughout the campus, so we were spending," she said.

Now Stanford owns the logo design, which means that it can also prevent others from replicating the school's likeness by just using Sabon art.

[jayasena]

I'm not buying the "lines were too thin" argument. Maybe that was an issue a while ago with low-res displays and aliasing, but that should not be a big problem today. I mean, seriously, why won't the logo render on an iPhone when uncle Jobs (bless him) clearly said the iPhone has higher resolution than the human eye can resolve?

Maybe it's the cynic in me but I can't help thinking this is the real reason:

The last logo was Sabon font, and Lapin explained that was expensive to license.

"Lots of units wanted to have it throughout the campus, so we were spending," she said.

Now Stanford owns the logo design, which means that it can also prevent others from replicating the school's likeness by just using Sabon art.

[Spiny_Norman]

Cal following Stanford's lead.

http://stanfordflipside.com/2012/11/cal-...wingdings/

[Spiny_Norman]

Cal following Stanford's lead.

http://stanfordflipside.com/2012/11/cal-...wingdings/

[Griffins78]

Funny ;D

[Griffins78]

Funny ;D