The new logotype looks great. The capitalization is a non-issue in the long term, it doesn't matter if people continue calling it lowercase git.<p>I have qualms about the Octocat mark though. Everyone wants to be Apple and drop their name in favor of a recognizable logo. What people forget is that the logo for Apple is actually an apple. That's what made it so easy for Apple to adopt this strategy early on. The same approach can work for companies that have a massively recognizable brand and an advertising budget dedicated to burning the icon into our retinas (Nike). But it still requires having a memorable mark.<p>For applications of the logo where scale comes into play, GitHub's designers clearly haven't reviewed their branding 101 coursework. Read Paul Rand's IBM style guide for a refresher on the 8-stripe and 13-stripe versions of his logo. The applications they show on their site at 30x30px and lower are barely readable.
When the Octocat Mark is rendered at any size less than 75x75 pixels, it's pretty much impossible to tell that the "tail" of the cat is actually a tentacle.<p>That's unfortunate, because on <a href="https://github.com/logos" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/logos</a> the only recommended use for the mark is in social buttons, which are going to be relatively small.<p>Even at larger sizes, the tentacle just seems tacked on.
The homepage now looks very bland. Perhaps to people who really know typography the GitHub name is very distinct, but to me it doesn't distinguish itself and reminds me of a bootstrap site with a couple hours of tweaking more than a unique and memorable brand / style.
Given the old icon was just a lowercase g in various containers, I think this is a good step. The octocat is already recognizable, and although it's a little too detailed for small rendering, it's still relatively unique and distinct.<p>Nice work on this one. It may not be the perfect symbol, but it is uniquely and definitively github.
While I love GitHub, and I use it on a daily basis... I'm really confused how news like this gets to the very top, but other submissions (many highly technical) sometimes barely get 5 votes. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Does anyone else notice the striking similarity between the new Enterprise design and Bootstrap? I guess that's what you get when you hire Mark Otto.<p><a href="https://enterprise.github.com/" rel="nofollow">https://enterprise.github.com/</a>
<a href="http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/</a>
From <a href="https://github.com/logos" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/logos</a><p>Please don't do these things:<p>- Create a modified version of the Octocat or GitHub logo<p>Do they have something against the Octodex?<p><a href="http://octodex.github.com/" rel="nofollow">http://octodex.github.com/</a>
It probably feels to them like GitHub is so well known that the company needs to be called that. I think they're actually early enough on that they could just make it one of their products.<p><pre><code> SocialCoding, Inc.
/ | \
GitHub ??? ???</code></pre>
It seems that GitHub wants a more "serious" look. I wonder why that is. Do managers dismiss GitHub for Enterprise as a possibility because it feels hackish/unprofessional?
I'd really like to hear their thoughts around the capitalization of GitHub. Everyone who uses git interacts it with it in downcase. To see it upcased like that is unfamiliar.
I'm a little surprised by the striking similarities between Octocat and the "Octonauts" (www.octonauts.com) - a cartoon in the UK that my two kids are mad about.<p>I'm trusting that these copyright/design right concerns have been contemplated at least - not least because of the similarity in name as well as in design.<p>(See the google images link for a collection of octonauts: <a href="http://goo.gl/Xek21" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/Xek21</a>)
What's the story behind Octocat?<p>That...thing...doesn't really do much for me as far as a corporate logo goes. Rather complex shape (see references to scaling problems), sorta catish but not, WTH is that weird tail (cat, four legs and a...), this post is the first reference to "octo" I've seen in the months I've used the service, there's 5 limbs not 8, etc. Makes me think of a little kid in a Halloween costume.<p>"Github" name works fine. "Git" spoofs "get" a la archiving, "hub" is central connector/repository, concatenated the name just rolls off the tongue and instantly works as a coined term. Rendered in a nice unique font, great. But then there's that creature...
oh dear.<p>I may be reading too much between the lines, but thy post, and the logo-page, are corporate, goal driven projects (maybe top down) that are then wrapped up in nice fluffy words.<p>Its not the same as nice fluffy ideas, getting thrown out and tested, with maybe as much attention from lawyers as aspell.<p>Of course it happens, but this is the time github went from that nice sparky startup, to the long slide into corporate beige.<p>In many ways its a triumph, startups just don't succeed like this. And I would wish success and money and more success on them all - but my antennae twitched.<p>Still paying monthly for it though. Octocat will cry all the way to the bank
Looks like this came with a homepage redesign as well: <a href="http://github.com" rel="nofollow">http://github.com</a><p>If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Drew Houston ought to be feeling great right about now.