since most people are not designers, I would tend to say that a redesign of something that works basically flawlessly would only be to satisfy the designer's ego, not the average consumer's one. And I cite as an example the horrible redesigns in the Wired article.

I think Google has always presented itself well. One of the first things I remember hearing about Google was the design of the site (or lack thereof). Where sites like Yahoo, MSN, Lycos, etc. tried to cram every possible link and annoying ad they could fit onto a page, Google focused on their #1 goal...to be the best search engine. That is a shining example of branding at it's best—focus on what you're great at and you'll come out on top. Even as they've added new features (image search, froogle, news, etc.) The home page has barely changed. I don't think you see many companies with the discipline to maintain their brand so well.

I continually see misuse of the term 'design'. Google is already a very well designed site. Highly useable. Clearly organized. Functional. It does exactly what it was designed to do without any extra fluff.

If we're actually talking about Google's visual identity, could it be fancier? Well, sure, but would that make the brand experience of using Google any better? I dunno. It works great as-is and everyone else is quite familiar with the visual identity already.

(BTW...other brands that have become verbs: xeroxing, rollerblading, whiting out, velcroing, hi-liting, spamming--all found by googling, of course...)

I don't think that messing with something like the Google logo would do any harm. Kyle is right; the site itself does all the work. It is a search engine and does just that. Now that Google is what it is, messing around with the logo itself might be interesting

Google's look could stand a tweak, sure but I can't think of a good reason to bother initiating one. It works. I agree with Mitch: a redesign wouldn't be much more than designer ego-stroke.

On the other hand, Mitch: That Wired thing is fundamentally flawed at best and just dumb at worst. It was a cute exercise, but there's no way in hell that Google would ever approach Holzer for a redesign. Note that Fairey's blurb even lists designer after propagandist. We won't even get into his design not making any damn sense(Typewriter? WTF.)

Jenny Holzer's an artist. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is the wrong approach. Seach engines are not conceptual things. Just point me at what I'm looking for.

Josh Davis' design is simply a usability nightmare. Way too much information, for no obvious reason. If I want to know the weather where Tufte lived, I'd search for that.

As a sidenote, Tufte's response to this was that he wouldn't change a thing about Google. Curious that they omitted that from the on-line version.

IDEO would have to try really hard to make their concept even more vaporware-ish. I'm not even sure what they're saying.

Okay, all those re-designs totally sucked. Like totally. Good fucking lord.

Google is a triumph of on-line design, and its even a brand design achievement in a lot of ways--yes, the logo is nothing brilliant conceptually, but you gotta love the "G o o o o o o o o g l e" thing, that's cool. I guess that's the conceptual part. Fine by me.

For the most part, its design is nothing to imitate for other things--typically, this is how I think a lot of designers determine what's good. Whether or not they'd cop the style and use it on something else. I mean, I know we all say that it goes beyond that but dude...seriously. However, for search engines and the like...there's a lot to rip off here, just from an interface point of view. It's an exercise in simplicity and efficiency, clear hierarchy, and you can find what you need quickly, and do what you want to do without any difficulty. As Tufte himself would likely say, its a very high-resolution presentation of information.

None of the other designs came close to that. Davis's thing looks like an extension of praystation.com and the quizzical purpose that that site serves, Holzer's was amazingly narrow and not even that conceptually deep, Fairey's was just more of that style he uses, and what the fuck was IDEOs?

In terms of branding, what it has right now isn't THAT bad--if I were to redesign the logo, I'd ditch the damn drop shadows and bevels because they're totally unnecessary, but keep the typeface and color scheme. They now own that collection of colors. It's elements are so goddamned simple that if it needs anything, its just a bit of polish. Maybe I'll do one tomorrow over lunch.

Anyway I'm going to go do what all vain people do, and Google myself now.

other brands that have become verbs: xeroxing, rollerblading, whiting out, velcroing, hi-liting, spamming

Interestingly enough, none of these "brands" are of much value these days. We may rollerblade, but is it at all important to buy Rollerblade-branded skates?

It might seem logical that great value can come of your brand name entering the lexicon as a verb. Instead, it can be a negative in the long run if your brand image doesn't keep pace with the real company. Xerox is a prime example. They are not just a copier company, and haven't been for a long time. Anyone recall their "The Document Company" days, with the digital X logo and tagline bigger than the wordmark? It was an attempt to correct the brand image and reassert what they were to consumers. But "xeroxing" had gained such traction that they still aren't able to overcome it and it's more a drag on their brand than an enhancement. Instead of it describing something special that only Xerox offered, it is now generic and of no value. Google should very carefully manage their growing brand so they can carefully balance image vs. the reality.

Google should very carefully manage their growing brand so they can carefully balance image vs. the reality.

Agreed. A significant part of its success is its simplicity, both of appearance and of its function. According to that Wired article, they'll have a lot more to worry about than just brand image...important as that is.

The first time I heard about Google was from my neighbor probably four-five years ago (I wasn't a design obsessive yet). The next day I went ahead and logged on, and accustomed to the Yahoo "experience" thought Is this is it? This is supposed to be the most comprehensive search engine?. The page looks the same now as it did then. It's just weird, it's like What-not-to-do in branding 101, yet here they are, number one brand and going strong.

I agree that changing the logo or the look of the page is not a good idea. But a little pick-me-up? No? Just a little one? If they want to keep the bevels and drop shadows, fine, but try to make them a little bit nicer — that's all I'm saying.

And those Wired "redesigns"… obviously, the designers didn't take it too seriously (I hope) and simply messed up a great opportunity to showcase what good design could do for Google. Whatever.

But a little pick-me-up? No? Just a little one? If they want to keep the bevels and drop shadows, fine, but try to make them a little bit nicer — that's all I'm saying.

To crib from Milton Babbit again; for me, this logo falls into the category of "the whistling repertory of the common man". Yes, it's a bit clunky; but the logo is immediately identifiable -- even with the holiday additions.

I get the feeling that you would like to see a little photoshop bevel on the thing. Maybe a golden comb-over?

> I get the feeling that you would like to see a little photoshop bevel on the thing. Maybe a golden comb-over?

Sure! It's in vogue, no?

the amazing part of google's recognition is that i don't even search through the google site but straight from safari, or from watson. but i know i'm using google. hey, that's even better than losing the logotype and relying on a swoosh. google "just is".

of course should my searches fail to bring up the desired results, google would be out the door.

I too am one who loved Google from the beginning for the simplicity of the interface. I don't think I've ever switched to a service so fast or so completely as Google (probably around the same time as you, Armin). It was a calm in a storm of badly designed, ineffective, annoying competition, and I've never used another search engine since.

The logo is not offensive to me, and the only changes I would advocate would be a tweak, esp. to the serifs. Does anyone remember a few years ago in @issue (one of the paper co.'s magazines --Sappi?) they got several designers to redesign some famous logos as an exercise? They did McDonald's and various others which were, by and large, abominable redesigns... except GrapeNuts. I can't remember who did the GrapeNuts exercise (someone really famous), but it was a work of genius: the logo at first glance looked exactly the same, but when you looked closer you could see how the letterforms had been adjusted slightly so that they balanced better, unsightly bulges and awkward curves removed. That's all I would do to Google.

Having said that I think their "brand" is more in the place, the service and the name than the visual identity, and if all else stayed the same a complete logo redesign would make not one whit of difference.

Anyway I'm going to go do what all vain people do, and Google myself now

Heh heh.

> It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? How can a company with absolutely no advertising efforts (except a few inserts in some magazines for their AdSense offering) and a kitschy, almost vernacular, logo beat overly-branded giants?

From the Google corporate information section:

10 things Google has found to be true

1) Focus on the user and all else will follow.

From its inception, Google has focused on providing the best user experience possible. While many companies claim to put their customers first, few are able to resist the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value. Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site.

Quite simply, that is the Brand. (Yes, in this case, with a capital 'B'.) Of note -- here is the original logotype going all the way back to Stanford.

If you have to redesign the logotype, get Experimental Jetset to set it in Helvetica.

The difference between Google and all other "search engines" is that Google is (currently) a Seach Engine. While the others have gone on to be "content/service" sites -- i.e. Yahoo! Movies, Yahoo! Launch, Yahoo! HotJobs, Yahoo! Chat and on and on -- sure, Google is dabbling in technology like Froogle, Google has remained a Seach Engine.

Now, as for that utopian diktat -- "Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site." -- the statement is worded in a way that if they ever acquire a napster or an ifilm, they can the addition by insisting that since "we are the #1 destination on the web, we saw the need in offering more benefit to the user by streamlining their acquisition for content-supported information." But we all will know what they originally "found to be true".

This will be an interesting story to follow over the next 5 years -- post IPO. Will the pressures of Wall Street -- and the investing public -- drive Google down the path of Yahoo! and Excite; forcing their once pure vision of the "perfect search engine" into a behemoth suffering from featuritis?

To see the impact of Google on the "competition", take a look at the transformation of the altavista site (and the trademark -- the latest should have never seen the light of day) over the years from beginning (1996 - 1999 - 2000) to today, which is quite Googlistic.

That is my entry into the Googlexicon -- Googlistic (adj.) 1. simple. (period)

Oh, that and Googlexicon.

Recognized by Brandchannel’s annual poll of the most impactful brands

and

yet here they are, number one brand and going strong.

An important note is that the poll was conducted among readers of brandchannel.com.

My guess is that Speak Up readers would choose a different brand as their most impactful, as would every other website's readers. I would also guess that the most impactful global (or local) brand overall, chosen by the random general public, would not be an internet brand.

Oh my gosh, that new altavista logo is horrendous! Someone should be ashamed of themselves.

Marian, that logo redesign feature was in the early issues of Critique. I enjoyed the feature, even though it didn't last long. It was somewhat energizing to see even masters like Woody Pirtle perpetrate some bad design on McDonalds (the 'redesign' looked like a pair of limp french fries).

I second Bradley's comment: the multiple oooo's (Goooooogle) in the search results section is great. This logo really needs some simple cleanup. Ditch the shadows and bevels — too much of a pain to reproduce offline and in small situations — and work the serifs.

By the way, there's some really nasty versions in the Fan logos section. They're horrible, yet I like Google's spirit for putting them online.

It will be very interesting to see what the IPO does to them as a company and a culture. The relentless drive for profits and growth can really strangle the inner spirit of a company if it is ignored.

Marian, that logo redesign feature was in the early issues of Critique.

Ah. This is what I get for letting all my design mags stay with my former company. dammit. (But who did the GrapeNuts?)

>other brands that have become verbs: xeroxing, rollerblading, whiting out, velcroing, hi-liting, spamming

>Interestingly enough, none of these "brands" are of much value these days. We may rollerblade, but is it at all important to buy Rollerblade-branded skates?

Not necessarily so. Some brands are so much a part of our lexicon we forget that they really are brand names, and not the name of the product itself: ketchup, kleenex, vaseline, q-tips, scotch-tape, saran wrap, zip-lock, post-it, jello and this little delicious one: magic marker.

Actually "coke" also qualifies...ever hear anyone ask for a "cola"?

Some brands are so much a part of our lexicon we forget that they really are brand names,

That was my point. The "value" lost is to the original company that created it. When I say I want to go buy some kleenex, I really could care less if it was Kleenex-brand or not. When I say I want a Coke, though, I want a Coke�! I'm continually disappointed if a waiter doesn't ask if Pepsi is ok.

Brady: It's hardly just Altavista. They weren't even the first ones to cop the Google look. It's practically the template for search engines now. In roughly descending order of similar minimalism,

Metrobot

Alltheweb

Teoma

FindForward(uses Google API)

Mamma

Overture

Kartoo

Webcrawler

DogPile

Metacrawler

Lycose

And There's More

By the way, there's some really nasty versions in the I find it fascinating, not only that google has become a verb, but that it has done so as quickly as it has. I try to resist using it as a verb... I can't imagine what life will be like in 10 years with everyone speaking in Brandspeak:

"I was ipodding while on my mac earlier and had to google a book to amazon to my mother. I tried to ebay it first, but it was too expensive to fedex it. Then I decided to starbucks but on the way, but first had to wellsfargo, and then xerox some flyers for a show at verizon stadium. Maybe I'll just subway lunch today...."

Okay, so that was lame, but you get the idea. Is this where we're headed?

I need a tylenol and a band-aid.

I think the appeal of Google stems from its contrast with the other search engines sites. Minimal instead of busy. That simple differentiation gives it visibility, and attracts users. Its superior technology then hooks the users and keeps them.

Weird -- but I was just reading an article about Google on the plane the other day. It was in an obscure magazine that was available on the plane -- called Tech Innovations or something like that, published by the MIT Press. The featured article was about Google's imminent IPO, and their competitors' efforts to dethrone them. Microsoft, specifically, is putting forth an intense effort. Most of the rest of the article was over my head, and making me sleepy -- so I stopped reading.

But the thing that impressed me was how humble and realistic the CTO of Google was. They recognize that their dominance as the intenet's next-big-thing will only last until a new next-big-thing comes along. Nothing lasts forever in technology. Of course, they're doing their best to come up with the next momentous innovation -- but so are tons of competitors. Their formula works for now. The key to their continued success lies in their persitence seeking new technologies, not marketing or leveraging a brand that's already peaked. Very smart.

But back to their logo. What's the use of a redesign? The "shelf life" of a search engine brand, or most internet brands for that matter, is usually less than the lifespan of a UPN sitcom. Google has been a very rare exception -- but it's still so utilitarian.

Besides, you'd be surprised at how often internet sites are subtly "redesigned". Expedia used to be a client. Their site actually had minor redesigns every week -- consistently. Dozens of small tweaks to interfaces, colors, buttons, font sizes, etc. It's like you can't actually see a weed grow, but it still happens nevertheless.

To expand on Armin's comment...

> And those Wired "redesigns"… obviously, the designers didn't take it too seriously (I hope) and simply messed up a great opportunity to showcase what good design could do for Google.

The designs did not take into account the needs of the user or then, the needs of the brand. Whether they took it seriously is not the issue and, at the same time, at the core of another issue.

We continue to ask when will graphic design be taken seriously, when will it be seen as relevant?

The Wired redesigns -- granted one is by artist (not designer by trade) Jenny Holzer -- are the reason graphic design continues to be viewed by many as self-serving and insignificant window-dressing.

Missed opportunity? That it is Edward. That it is indeed.

I need a tylenol and a band-aid.

Me too Debbie.

I continually see misuse of the term 'design'.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Back to the question would Google benefit from an overhaul?

As well as a lot of other people here, I don't think it would. As a 'graphic designer' I would say, maybe a subtle tweak to the logo as Armin mention. Perhaps a revision to the CSS might render a better 'look.' Yahoo! did it several years back without an overhaul and was widely appreciated.

Craigslist however, is another story.

The Wired redesigns -- granted one is by artist (not designer by trade) Jenny Holzer -- are the reason graphic design continues to be viewed by many as self-serving and insignificant window-dressing.

Precisely--this is why I'm getting all PMS-y about it, because...fuck, people! Why? I can't tell who's design annoyed me most.

None of them appeared to be section 508 compliant (this basically means that the site is accessible to people who can't see, or who can't use a mouse. That sort of thing) nor did any of the designers seem to even remotely consider that aspect. Is this mission critical? Not necessarily, but, the current design while not perfect comes pretty damn close--and accessibility is a big part of this brand. You don't even have to be ON the site to access it. The details count.

Design is a serious fucking business and if ad-crammed publications like Wired continue to prop up these little playgrounds for self-indulgence, it accomplishes nothing.

In other news I tried re-designing the logo today, but I gotta say I actually prefer the bevels and drop shadows to the simplified version I did (Bembo with the same spacing and color palette). I'd consider changing the typeface to something heavier but I'm not sure there's any point to it, and I wouldn't want to obliterate the equity they've built up already. Eeeaagh. Never thought I'd approve of a fuzzy little drop shadow...or a bevel...yikes. I might as well just get a pair of leg warmers and start rolling my jeans.

Make mine a Motrin. What was the point of Wired's article, that something that works so well can be royally screwed when handed to two 'designers' and an artist? Personally, if I'd been asked, I wasn't, I would have simply said, change what. (I'm a fan of Tufte's).

There is no good served by redesiging something that works and works well for now. Anything to be done would be done for purely asthetic reasons and meet no immediate business need, which is how I define the goal of any design project. A visual solution that solves a buinsess need. Google is a great brand because it works. It's beautful in its simplicity and almost flawless acccess. I too was an early and immediate adopter. I use it everyday without thinking twice about it. And as for Coke vs. Pepsi, I've learned to ask everytime I order. Waiter, Coke please. No Pepsi.

> Waiter, Coke please. No Pepsi.

[Off topic] One more article from branchannel.com.

Just a few sad comments from the tech front.

What set Google apart, besides the clean interface (Yahoo had one at one time) was their search algorithm. When you looked for something, they looked at all other pages which referenced a page, and thus came up with better relevancy.

That set them apart from most search engines which were only counting words or ? whatever else they did. Yahoo, by the way is (was?) not a search engine, they are a directory, a hierarchical record of the web, put in place by human sorting.

The sad part is, now that Google is so big, the inclusion of new forms of web experience (especially blogs), makes Google's patented search routines no longer work. As far as I know, they have been retired for the moment. So the thing that made them a more relevant search engine is missing. Though, being good mathematicians (?) they probably still have some fairly effective search algorithms in their system.

They have tremendous brand recognition, but have suffered technical stresses. That may cause them to lose some ground in the long run.

--- beginning of preachy comments ---

Finally, a point about design. If a major feature of design is clear communication, then Google is communicating very effectively with their audience. It would be nice if everything fit into our personal aesthetics (well, pretty unchallenging actually), but there are a lot of people out there with different aesthetics. And if most of them see things like a 5 year old (because of low visual literacy in our culture) we too, can enjoy being 5 for a while.

To change topic, but not point, I was a very good soccer player. But when I played pick-up games with mixed ages and experience levels, I realised I had forgotten how to just have fun. I had lost the beauty of the game (or rather, had narrowed it to a particular expression focused on intense skilled competition). I had to learn how to lighten up, and just enjoy playing.

--- end of preachy comments ---

The sad part is, now that Google is so big, the inclusion of new forms of web experience (especially blogs), makes Google's patented search routines no longer work.

No.

That statement, which is a tired and wildly inaccurate complaint, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Google's algorithm works. It's not an objective system, and it never was. Very roughly speaking, it measures public opinion, particularly as it applies to and occurs on the Web*. Google operates on the assumption(already we're leaving objective territory) that if a page is often linked to with the words "talentless hack" then that page must be about a talentless hack. The previous link is obviously abuse, but it's also a prime example of how the system actually works, as opposed to what people tend to mistakenly assume about it.

The funny thing, though, is that Google have repeatedly stated that they don't care, because the system is also built in such a way those stunts generally fade away fast enough not to have a significant effect.

It's Not A Bug, It's A Feature. When Google first popped up, the "Personal Web" wasn't nearly as big and so search results possibly tended to be of a more objective nature. You shouldn't assume that to mean the process and thought behind aggregating those results was objective.

Google is not broken. The results have changed because the information has changed, and that's as it should be. They spider everything they come across, and then search all of it. If you want to look within a limited area, there are hundreds of specialized, curated search engines out there, besides the directories. You can use Google to find them, incidentally.

*Another very important detail, explaining why, for example, some well-known web people who share names with "classic" authors will sometimes trump those authors in Google searches. Complaining about this is laziness on the part of the user, who should simply provide more specific search criteria, and not assume that Google is psychic.

I never said it was an objective system. It is true that the idea was to get better search relevancy because hopefully if you had more links to your page, you were a better resource. It is indeed a social ranking system. One point being that small pages, or new pages often do not index well.

However ... as to whether they are still using that method, I refer you to many articles on The Register (www.theregister.com) which have discussed the way blogs are creating havoc with Google's system because of their introcursive linking. And if I remember correctly, the ranking algorithm is not currently running. The point is, the landscape of the web has changed, and so far, the people at Google have not figured out a way to work around it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33141.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33366.html

Ok. After a bit of a search I can't find an article saying they pulled PageRank™ (the search method). I thought I saw one, but, ...

In any case, as I read the Register regularly, I have read about this for a while. The web is becoming harder to search. And blogs, which are fascinating (I am not dissing on blogs), have been altering the search performance of Google.

Sorry if I was a bit simplistic in my explanation (and conclusions).

something no one has even bothered to consider:

google is fast. lightning fast. they are able to keep it that way by keeping the servers as stream-lined as possible. have you looked at the source code. that's not done to keep you from figuring it out. it's done because trimming the load time down by even 3k can help when you're talking about a billion or so hits every second. (that may be exaggerting, but i kind of doubt it.)

While the Google logo remains the same, as of about 12:00am this morning, the Google interface has been streamlined even further, removing the previous tabs and adding a few new features.

Some brands are so much a part of our lexicon we forget that they really are brand names, and not the name of the product itself: ... kleenex...

In the latest Advertising Age, there is a back page ad for Kleenex�, explaining that it is a registered trademark, not a generic descriptor of tissues, etc. If anyone sees this ad and can scan and post it, that'd be great.

I love the new features. The local feature is excellent.

I'm perusing archives here, so this is likely a dead thread... nonetheless:

Google is branded... though it's something closer to an anti-brand of the casual/naive, vernacular variety. And, as has been pointed out, it is fundamentally tied to the quality of service provided.

I work at a company--that shall remain nameless--with simply atrocious brand design. Yet someone got it into their heads that strong brand consistency is of the utmost importance. In my opinion brand consistency doesn't do much good if that brand is consistently awful. And in our case focus on logos misplaces the brand emphasis (even Nike's swoosh would fail if they didn't maintain at least an appearance of quality product). If it were me, I would prefer a weaker branding strategy (assuming a complete design overhaul is out of the question): for example, forget about emblazoning our hideous logo and horrid colors on everything and focus instead on the sense of identity that acrues from delivering true quality service. I think Google demonstrates this sort of strategy quite well. That Goooooooooogle bit is simply priceless, too.

> Google should very carefully manage their growing brand so they can carefully balance image vs. the reality.

Just brainstorming here, I'd be tempted to take it in the entirely opposite direction:

First of all, simplicity is the core idea, so lets go even more low-fi. Perhaps we could do away with images all together (right now, the only image would be the logo), going with purely text-based design and maintaining the straightforward information design they currently utilize. Since this is purely hypothetical, maybe we could hypothesize substantial support for SVG which could allow for some logo refinement or the serif-tweaking people here seem to be pining for. And white-space, lots of white-space.

Then (as a bit of a lob to the free culture/open source ideologues and their ilk) we can let loose the leash and allow users to customize their own CSS (and even SVG) for personalized styles--or to download pre-fab styles from members of the Google-skin cottage industry that would inevitably crop up.

This would allow those adherents of the techno-baroque of the rave-poster/teen-hacker/information-overload aesthetic to overdesign to their hearts' content. Those of us who prefer breathable white-space could stick with the default (or redesign it ourselves accordingly). Taking advantage of CSS's separation of style and structure, we can then all stroke our design egos, without destroying the underlying functionality.

This might also allow Google to be seen more as an application than as a website, which I think would be appropriate.

When I sign my name to anything I leave a unique signature. I've never put any effort into how it looks, or what “message” it conveys. It's simply my name written in cursive handwriting. My credit card companies recognize it, my bank recognizes it. Even the IRS can't seem to think I'm me without it. It's my logo.

Google has a logo. Google has a signature. I don't think they'd benefit from a logo redesign, anymore than I'd benefit by redesigning my personal signature.

The Google logo actually has something in common with a lot of Paul Rand logos (don't shut me off yet, I think you'll see what I mean in a moment) in that it has no glaring flaws. (Of course a Paul Rand Logo has NO flaws.) It's clear, it's simple, it's a signature.

There are really only two instances where I feel like the designer is a valuable ally when considering the company signature. When the company is either beginning, or signficantly changing.

At the beginning a company has to make an impression. They need the world to understand them as rapidly as possible so they can make money before they go away. In most cases starting with a professionally designed identity accompanied by a solid design/brand/positioning strategy can be an indespensible tool. In the case of Google, I don't know the details of their strategy, but I do know that while I wouldn't consider their identity to be brilliant, it is certainly not off target or visually “flawed.”

The other place where a signature change could be important would be if the company was changing significantly and wants to attract attention. For example, FedEx changed their name. That was an opportunity to make a statement with their signature. Xerox had a major change in mission -- from a copier company to a document company. Hence a new signature.

Of course as a professional identity designer, I’d love for every company to redesign their signature yearly. Then I could keep busy, and get rich and fat. But would Google be well served by a new signature? Not until they change either their mission or their name.

To see the impact of Google on the "competition", take a look at the transformation of the altavista site (and the trademark -- the latest should have never seen the light of day) over the years from beginning (1996 - 1999 - 2000) to today, which is quite Googlistic.

Rather than being Googlistic, I'd rather see it as returning to its own roots. Back when Altavista was still altavista.digital.com, its interface was far simpler than the "1996" example — by today's standards, Googlistic, one could say —; really, a simple design just is the way search engines were supposed to look like.

Nice Google logo today.

I use Google all the time and I see no reason to re-design the current, simple yet effective logo for Google.

Now If Google were to celebrate Saul Bass's birthday what would the Google logo look like?

hmnmmmmm...........

:)