First impression of the new logo: boring. Second impression: nice play on an open book and capital O, very clean lines, will look good in print (perhaps with some light gradient/shading). The new typeface reads very well.
It’s pretty amusing that this is on the front page at the same time as the below.
https://medium.com/knowable/why-everything-looks-the-same-ba...
Outside of military use and maybe some rare other state uses, there wasn't much insignia, and especially not much insignia that you would call a logo by today's application.
These came in many styles and had a lovely variety which sprang from the message the person wanted to send and what they thought looked cool.
There are also too many logos that look like the new logo. The first blue circle logos that spring to mind are Blue Circle Cement/Tarmac/Lafarge [1] and Oxford Nanopore [2].
(The generic sans-serif font is also visually similar to many logos)
The issue is not that it’s unpopular. That’s the actual University of Oxford coat of arms. The thing is 600 years old.
Should it be changed because every institution which wants to look somewhat respectable is copying Oxford?
However, I don't see a problem with people, artists, businesses, places updating their individual branding. To me it's a sign of a refreshed outlook, a new way to both see oneself and to present oneself to others. Clinging to the past because it's (a priori) old is not the right motivation.
I think the open book metaphor gets lost in the aggressive roundness of the O. When I first looked at it, I thought why would they make it look like a turbo fan…? Now in the case of Raytheon, a turbofan makes complete sense.
Hindered by this bias, it took me a bit to arrive at the open book representation, and was only able to do that because it’s OUP.