Ünlü Şirketlerin Logolarını web2.0 hali ile görün!

WEB 2.0 VERSION

ORIGINAL VERSION

Comment(s): The original version of the FedEx logo looks much better than the transformed image. The web 2.0 version of the FedEx logo fails to carry the hidden arrow in it for which the logo is famous. In constrast, it exposed the arrow in an absurd way, damaging the complete look of the FedEx logo.

Comment(s): I really hate this logo. Both the versions are nothing but utter disappointment and useless, especially the web 2.0 version.

Comment(s): Nice renovation of the CitiBank logo into a Web 2.0 version. But I would prefer to keep the same color scheme as of the original one.

Comment(s): The original one is much better but yes, the web 2.0 version of the abc logo is more contemporary.

Comment(s): By far the most interesting and the best web 2.0 logo in the bunch. The style is pretty much similar to the original logo, but has a modern look added to it.

Comment(s): I really like this logo. But what is the flickr typeface doing in the National Geographic logo. I understand that it’s a joke, but still…

Comment(s): Craigslist is probably one of those logos that desperately requires a makeover. The webpage has a dry and obsolete interface, and the logo is even more dissapointing. Thus, the web 2.0 version of the logo is a satisfying outlook. I strongly recommend craigslist to adopt the web 2.0 look.

Comment(s): Pretty much similar to the orginal logo, though I like what they did with the color combination.

Comment(s): Another intelligent design that is difficult to alter. The typefaced Coca-Cola logo is famous for its Spencerian script logotype, which is fashionable in its own sense. Though, the web 2.0 version of the Coca-Cola logo is almost exactly the same, the introduction of a red and blue color scheme gives the whole logo a modern look.

Comment(s): Apple is one of those logos in the word that does not require a name to make it recognizable. Yet, that did not stop it to become the most famous and liked logo of all times. The reason behind this special identity is the simplicity of the logo. Additionally, this simplicity has led the Apple logo to adapt different versions, making every new version even more successful than the other. I find the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo creative and strong. However, the only objection I have for the web 2.0 version is its adaptability. Unlike the original one, the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo cannot be used on any medium, except the web, due to the inclusion of color element in it. But overall, I think the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo is contemporary and artistic. Maybe, if a range of colors is available, the web 2.0 version will look good on Apple’s iPods.

Comment(s): Not a big difference in either versions except for the color scheme. The web 2.0 version of the UPS logo has an unusual contrast of colors in it, which is a bit disappointing.

Comment(s): I like the original version better than the web 2.0 one. The orginal version of the Yahoo Logo looks more modern than the latter one.

Comment(s): The ‘Swoosh’ in the nike logo is the most intelligent design of all times. That’s why, it is impossible to change the swoosh design, no matter whatever tool or software you use. On other note, the above web 2.0 design is an exceptionally well done effort.