Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand. It's something virtually every company does from time to time, and it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Microsoft isn't escaping any of their past with this change, they're still very recognizable as the same company as before.
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
> Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand.
Semantics.
> it's not a sign of the apocalypse.
I'm sorry if I implied it's a sign of the apocalypse. I didn't mean it that way. The point is Microsoft has suffered greatly due to the massive success of Apple. This is no news to anyone. They're not going to die anytime soon, but they have a MASSIVE threat. The Wire's portrayal of the character's brand and that of Worldcom, are not a 1:1 match, I agree, but the theory is the same.
My point was to draw the real reasoning behind branding and why companies shift and update brands. I've personally been trapped in this before, and thought "God that logo looks like shit! That company, or my company, should change it! They would do so much better if they did!" Branding/Logo is about associations of an image with the company and its values. When the values of the company deteriorate, lack credibility, etc, than the association of the logo starts portraying those negative values (or lack thereof).
For example: How many people here think Google should change it's logo? The logo itself lacks any sort of design principles and very clearly was created by a techie with lack of graphic design. So why on earth hasn't Google changed it?
> Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter.Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
I apologize, I wasn't aware that the logo before explicitly included the name. Regardless...
> Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
8 of the top 10 brands in the world have their name in their logo...[1] What exclusive club are you talking about?
>How many people here think Google should change it's logo? The logo itself lacks any sort of design principles and very clearly was created by a techie with lack of graphic design. So why on earth hasn't Google changed it?
They have changed it. They subtly update it every couple years to keep the shading and the bevel in line with current trends.
In any case, you're either missing my point, or you're missing the point of the scene in the wire. That was about a brand escaping their old image. Microsoft isn't doing that. They're embracing their old image, celebrating their old brand, and remaining recognizable as who they were before, even though they had the new logo. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what worldcom and the barksdale crew were trying to do. If they wanted to escape their old image, now would be a perfect time to do it, with their most different products ever, but they are sticking by both the windows and the Microsoft brands.
> They subtly update it every couple years to keep the shading and the bevel in line with current trends.
Apparently not. They changed it once in 1999 (after its original in 1998) and again in 2010.[1]
"The logo was the foundation for new icons and hundreds of tiny alterations designed to accommodate and seamlessly integrate the expanded functionality of the left-hand panel."[2]
So they had a legitimate design reason for changing the logo, not based solely on the brand...
and your link to the top 10 brands only shows coke for me, but here's what i'm thinking of: golden arches, chevy bow tie, nike swoosh, apple logo, playboy bunny, wikipedia crossed W.
I think of Twitter's logo change as the time they turned from "openish tool for loosely connecting millions" to "closed tool for broadcasting to millions". I wonder if that was intentional.
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.