A logo is an important asset for a company and should convey the "feeling" of the brand, both now and in the future since it is an expensive thing to change.

What this article overlooks is that a good logo needs to stand the test of time - and logos created from the current hype are often seen as hopelessly outdated when a new trend comes along.

A good logo needs to pass the test of time, not the test of the current hype.

IBM has an excellent logo that has stood the test of time, and conveys meaning in relation to their brand. (stability, size, accountability)

Good designers understand this.

Am I the only one who thinks of fallopian tubes and vaginas when I see the Silverlight logo?

The Xerox and Compaq logos suck but the Olympics logo is the worst of all; the British public is not happy with it. See, e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6729611.st...

From the beginning I've thought of the Silverlight logo as a radioactive jockstrap.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I hope one day Humor will see to it that this quote gets put on a page of famous quotes.

Regarding the olympics logo:

there was a bit of a stir a while ago because if you look for it you see a girl on her knees giving a blowjob.

That is funny. Even so, what's wrong with that? <sarcasm>

The silverlight logo is technically rendered differently whenever you install it.

Also, I don't like how they defame Lisa Simpson with raunchy sex acts.

The majority of the re-designs are bad. The Compaq logo especially.

That is almost always the first reaction to logo or name changes. Only time really tells.

Frankly I thought most were terrible. Very sterile.