ISO50

Reminds me of something like an blinking eye. Especially the old version.
But it is hard to tell, what the eye should have to do with hand-controlled input devices.

Big pac man eating scared little pac man

I always thought it was kinda like an ugly paw print, but I guess after Scott posting the original version, it’s just a wackassed plasticy evolution of a crapiola eyeball thing.

Yeah, I’ve always hated Logitech’s logo and their turquoise color preference. It’s one of the main reasons I feel detracted by them.

You can’t beat Greater Montreal’s new logo!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/10/29/montreal-s-half-million-dollar-logo.aspx

This one totally misses the point, and cost more than every single job I’ve billed put together.

I guess it could be worse, especially if an fugly bevel was applied to it…

You must admit, the single color version of the logo (on my mouse), does look far superior to the glossy version pictured above, and on Logitech’s website. http://idisk.d3done.com/Logitech_logo-20081202-085138.png

But as for an explanation, I don’t know if anyone really knows what in the world it is. But at least it’s better than the latest Mexico City logo:
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/in_brief_kiss_this_mexico_city.php

Doesn´t it look like a mouse as seen from the side. The stuff to the right of the mouse could represent the laser/light.

Anyway, not pretty but it´s a logo you´ll never forget.

Probably an inhouse job-hell, the owner probably made it then patted himself on the back :)

It’s the spirits of Logich and Tech meeting for the first time. Duh!

I stand corrected on Intuit — they seem to have re-branded. Wacom has no excuse though.

worst. kerning. ever. the type in the title drives me nuts!!!!

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/

Haha yes! The Logitech logo! A wonderful mess of shiny…goop?

I had never really considered it until recently, when a friend of mine’s new company enlisted the Logitech logo designer to do their new logo. (presumably thinking that he would still be pretty talented. Although, based on most of these comments, perhaps that was a mistake haha) After a couple weeks, they got back a logo rendering which my friend ran by me for some extra feedback. I couldn’t believe how unbelievably bad it was. Total mess. It looked like the designer had run a Google image search, chose the first hit, live traced it, and then colored it purple and green. I didn’t know what to say! I felt terrible telling him how bad it was because I knew it had cost a fortune. And what could he do? He had assumed that the designer of one famous logo could design another one, and now was stuck with a logo even worse than Logitech’s.

Not a bad assumption, but I guess just because it’s famous doesn’t mean it’s any good. That’s the tricky thing with logos, sometimes people wrongly attribute the “success” of a logo with what it looks like. The ugliest logo in the world can still become a global success if it’s branded properly and represents the right company.

The original logo makes a little more sense. It looks like an eye and then directional arrows symbolizing the moving of your mouse. The eye is used instead of a mouse to show that a Logitech mouse is a direct link to your brain and it takes you where you want to go.

Haha, just kidding, it’s clearly a vagina spraying piss.

I kind of like that Montreal logo.

Speaking about bad logos generally…
Did you notice how bad was an idea o NIKE logo? I always thought it’s brilliant logo looking from all points of view. But!
Then I actually read about initial concept of logo – do you know what does it suppose to mean? I’ts the wing of godess Niké, godess of victory. Who the bloody hell know who Niké is? And how is this clear from the logo???

Don’t get me wrong graphicaly I think this logo actually is brilliant but conceptually it failed completely. Fortunetely people usually thinks that the logo means something like “This is allright” or “Marked as great”. So there is still positive thinking about the concept. But graphic designer should by imo also a shrink (just a little bit) in order not to make such conceptual mistakes.

The worst part of the Logitech logo is the crappy embossing.
Otherwise, I think it does a fine job as a logo. I can recognize that anywhere.

What is it? Who knows… And who cares?

I had a professor in school tell us a logo’s only real purpose is to serve as an immediate identifier, not a piece of art. You can argue this one, I’m sure. But the point I’m trying to make is that I remember that stupid logo from my childhood and it was the first name to come to mind when I started shopping for mice as an adult.

I’ve always been puzzled myself too, I still can’t quite work out what it actually is supposed to be. Personally I think it is supposed to represent a human hand.

– Thanks.

here’s the guy who did the current version:
http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/34979

Wow, that Logitech logo really is bad. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when they were making that one … it would be interesting to overhear the process or see some of the sketches that went into it. I have no clue what they were thinking.

and that 2012 title … *shudder*

the all-seeing eye. maybe hal designed it.

Looks like a bleeding butthole.

I’m family friends with one of the founders. Think I should forward him on the post? Heh… He may actually agree!

I know the Logitech logo had a large part to play in why I never bought a logitech mouse before. I’ve always found that eye thing appalling. I am immediately pushed away from products that have bad branding, I lose confidence in their professionalism and quality.

This is one of those logo’s, where if I was offered to redo it, I’d feel relieved.

This is definitely a design fail. It’s actually an EPIC FAIL.

Apparently it’s a stylized optical mouse:
http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/34979

Probably wasn’t so bad back in 1996 when it was introduced, but as far as the redesign goes…..fail.

the red bit annoys me so much, it’s just there, and the more you notice it the more I hate it.

but all in all, I don’t think this is an awful logo. nothing wrong with a bit of gloss and odd shapes, how boring would it be if everything was perfectly to your (or my..) tastes? It’s a logo of a company that makes mice and stuff, I really don’t mind. As far as that particular style goes there are far worse examples where the shapes and colours don’t work out at all. this one does, for me. not that I’d ever design it!

hey there! am a silent reader of your blog, but this time, i had to comment.

how do we define what constitutes or doesn’t constitute a good poster? and, even if we know, is it necessary to follow the rules?

am not questioning you, sir, but am a fan of your work and just want to clear these points.

Logitech makes pretty good products and it seems like the only people that would let their logo affect their buying decisions are pretentious designers. The old version definitely looks a bit dated now and this new version is crap, but who really cares besides us?

Good point. I have never thought about it that way. I think I must have just ignored the logo and just accepted that the product it represents is a great product. How stupid is that? Here I am with a degree in graphic design and I have totally overlooked one of the biggest product logos in the computer accessories world and just got on with criticizing every other logo that is not even half as bad…

Thanks for pointing this out.

D

Wow, Jakub, you created quite a good discussion. Probably the most comments I’ve seen on one of your blogs. Well in my mind, it does need some work. Why is the “red head” not glossy? I think it’s supposed to blend in with the Logitech font which is not glossy. I don’t know honestly. But I agree with Dave Krstin, the logo does serve as an immediate identifier. Any time you see that logo you think Logitech; even though it is poorly designed from a designers point of view.

It does NOT resemble the Sony Erickson logo eating a fat guy and why would you want that as a logo? It almost seems like the designer took 15 minutes to complete this. Does anyone know who the designer is? I’m interested in seeing this purple and green logo that Alex Cornell talked about.

rob

I think the logo is actually okay. It is UGLY and the colorized version is atrocious, but it is distinct.
You could never confuse that logo for some other company — and really that’s the point of a mark.

It may not transcend into perfection by being flexible, but it is distinct and by Randian logic, that is enough.

I think it’s meant to be something representing a webcam. :|

The second-rate glossy treatment and makes me feel ill. It’s not quite as bad when just one flat colour, but still awful…and to think this monstrosity of a logo sits beneath my palm for countless hours (logitech MX rev). :(