This looks like it would be a nice pattern for cross-stitching. It doesn't have any qualities that make it succeed as a logo.
To prove my point: try to remember and draw any part of this logo after it leaves your screen. Do you even remember the name of the company? Could you read that name at a glance?
Criticizing the logo is valid, but rehashing the same over-dramatic conversation about Ive is not worth the digital ink.
Have you ever bought a poorly-designed $2,000 device? Apple products can inspire deep, personal anger in a way that other brands can't because they're expensive and the company's leadership was a combination of oblivious and smug about user-hostile decisions.
Look at the touch bar: it ruined generations of some people's favorite laptops. Ive isn't the anti-Christ, but it's frustrating seeing someone so lauded after making some unbelievably bad design decisions and then stubbornly sticking to them.
It may not make sense to you, but Ive's work is very personal to some people (on both the good and bad ends of the spectrum).
If you're going to be furious at Jony Ive for the Macbook Pro, why not be angry at his competitors who can't seem to make a credible competitor? And if that is incorrect and there is a credible competitor, why not buy it and ignore Apple?
> it's incredible that in this day, no company comes close in design and aesthetic
Lots of companies shamelessly mimic Apple, so there are plenty of smartphones and laptops that are equally nice to look at.
I think it boils down to your priorities, too. A lot of people still use and love hideous Lenovo Thinkpad laptops that are highly functional. They have the trackpad and the "nub" for a mouse -- something Apple would likely find appallingly redundant, but is the thing that makes people love Thinkpads.
On the other side, there are people who use aging Macbook Airs from years ago, even though they're incredibly slow.
But all this aside, what I'm saying that Ive did was make enforce design decisions that were hostile to users across the spectrum (again, Touch Bar and USB-C-only notebooks are the easiest examples).
To answer your statement and question, this would actually be a poor cross-stitch due to the angles and intricate overlaps, but it’s a good seal. Understanding that it’s a seal, and not a logo, is key here—the logo is Sustainable Markets Initiative’s and follows the design principles you’re invoking in your comment.
The name on the seal, Terra Cotta, is presented clearly and memorably enough in large letters in the center of the seal, but the field of the seal is meant to look like a light or dark green disk at a glance and to reward more careful examination with details. The English and Latin arranged traditionally around the perimeter are mottos and not meant to be marketing keywords.
Interested in your take, given that. You can see it placed in context of the SMI brand here. https://www.sustainable-markets.org/terra-carta-seal/intro/
The seal isn't anything special. It's a small area with too much going on. It's an eye strain to understand what is happening on the seal b/c so much is happening in such a small area.
This article isn't on the front page of HN b/c of the seal, it's on the front page b/c of who designed the seal. Thus, people will talk about the designer not the seal.
At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? But at the bottom we have a white rose which is the moniker of the house of York. The house of York's lineage ended in 1499.
There was this thing called The War of The Roses, which saw the House of Lancaster and the House of York in conflict with each other.
If this was signed off by Prince Charles then he's as equally ignorant of the significance of the white rose. Even to this day it ruffles feather. The Tudor line pretty much ended when James VI of Scotland took the throne. Years down the line the Windsors were an imported royalty supplanting the House of Hanover at the turn of the 20th century, and has no direct connection with York or Lancaster sigils.
Most UK folks with the faintest awareness of history on the British Isles would spot this right away. We got this stage of English history rammed down our throats, even in Scottish schools.
In short, it's just another corporate logo that "looks nice" but the designer is clearly a bit clueless. I thought Ive would know better.
The design of the York rose is quite consistent. It isn't merely "a flower with white petals". In particular, these always have five petals; the one at the bottom has six.
Not every white flower is a symbol of York versus Lancaster.
It's not a crown but a coronet. Coronet are a heraldic device to symbolise noble ranks, including those of the royal family. In British usage a coronet of crosses and fleur-de-lis symbolises a child of the sovereign.
One could quibble about another detail: traditionally Charles’ coronet as heir apparent is displayed with a single arch. Crowns have two or more arches. That single arch is almost not there apart from the green arch formed by those interlocking circles of the seal.
Btw: It’s seems a bit silly to call the House of Windsor or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha “imported”. Queen Victoria of Hanover married, her son and heir took the “house” from his father, that’s pretty much it. What’s far more annoying was the patriarchal habit that “houses” go with the father’s line, at least until EIIR and Philipp.
Btw 2: Isn’t every British and English royal house “imported”?
Hanover was imported from Germany, based on distant descent from James’ VI/I second child and of course protestantism.
Stuart was imported, based on distant descent.
Tudor … imported and invented themselves, based on distant descent.
Plantagenet was Angevin, meaning from Anjou in France, because Geoffrey of Anjou married Matilda.
Normandy imported themselves, because of distant descend from Wessex.
Denmark is Denmark.
Wessex is homegrown, apart from the whole “sex” part.