digg

Join DiggAbout

60 Logos: What if the Whole World Went Web 2.0?

enthree.com — Everyone from Halliburton to Burger King and everything in between.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tossayo, on 12/19/2007, -17/+4half of these things are "lickrs"
  • J0415, on 12/19/2007, -6/+88While some are pretty good, most of the logos are just the original with some added gradients. Utterly uncreative.
    Also why are some logos repeated and some appear to have been unchanged (see AT&T, Burger King)?
    • suxmonkey, on 12/19/2007, -2/+12The BK one was looking pretty normal to me too ... I think they just added some gloss. As for the rest, I dunno, some of them I found pretty damned funny and creative, others just got the ol' glossy reflection but then again that's all a lot of web 2.0 logos are anyway - text, gloss, reflect, presto!
    • ostracize, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3*Comment hijack*
      Mirror with others:
      http://shootinggallery.info/v/verschiedenes/web2lo ...
    • darkmagus, on 12/19/2007, -1/+7Isn't that the point.
      • falstaff, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Yes it is. Most of these have been floating around for well over a year now as a joke that adding pastel colors or gradients or a "beta" tag is the only thing that separates new tech from old. And the AT&T one is the real logo, which is supposed to be the joke within the joke.
    • Mirk83, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Yeah I work for At&t(trust me I wish I didn't) and definitely the exact same logo we have already. No change at all. GG.
      • pilot3033, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5I figured that was the joke. Looks pretty web 2.0
    • osbjmg, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Well, you get what you paid for.
    • aduzik, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I think including the unmodified AT&T logo was part of the joke.
  • HarryBeanbag, on 12/19/2007, -1/+88The whole web 2.0 thing has kind of jumped the shark these days. These logos were a nice parody of how bad it has gotten.
    • dshPls, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Any 14 year old can "reinvent the web" with the Web 2.0 style, it's so lame. But next year someone else will create something cool, it will be imitated to death and web 2.0 will be a distant memory.
    • rudy23, on 12/19/2007, -0/+19Web 2.0 is the same as Daylight Saving time. No one can give a clear and compelling reason what it is and why it exists.
      • bxblox, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Daylight savings time: a ridiculous ploy to conserve energy
      • cfuse, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I thought daylight savings was invented so that people who don't drink get to feel what it's like to be hung over.
    • edicius, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I thought "jumped the shark" jumped the shark as soon as someone said it out loud.
  • Munkey106, on 12/19/2007, -6/+9"Burger King" looks the same
    • WebWorker, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5Yeah.. looks like they just changed the shades a bit to make it brighter in 2.0 style
    • billymonster, on 12/19/2007, -3/+4it is, its a joke.
  • ghee, on 12/19/2007, -21/+8This one is awesome:
    http://enthree.com/files/random/web2logos/hitlr.jp ...
    • ayeroxor, on 12/19/2007, -3/+6get back in the doublewide, cletus. The south already "rose again" - it's called the blue collar comedy tour.
    • KarthVader, on 12/19/2007, -3/+1My favorite:

      Tylenolol.
  • wwjbaby, on 12/19/2007, -13/+1comments:
    http://www.linkinn.com/_Corporate_Logos_redsigned_ ...
  • WhatsUpWithJack, on 12/19/2007, -18/+1Anybody know which graphic design program these were created in?
    • dshPls, on 12/19/2007, -2/+26Ms paint
    • THE4IRON, on 12/19/2007, -5/+11Anybody know which graphic design program these were created in?

      Seriously?
      • Magillicutti, on 12/19/2007, -3/+5Either photoshop or illustrator more than likely? You should have been able to assume as much.

        Seriously
    • pbaehr, on 12/19/2007, -4/+90Real graphic designers edit jpegs manually in notepad.
      • PopcornDave, on 12/19/2007, -5/+3Wow, and here I thought real graphic designers edited jpegs manually using debug.
    • mikehill33, on 12/19/2007, -5/+1Probably created with KDE!
    • surfing, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2LogoCrap
  • sion2119, on 12/19/2007, -3/+17some interesting logos....if you want little kids for your demographics.
  • MaxMWood, on 12/19/2007, -1/+30If the whole world went Web 2.0 - Id be worried why there was a Jurassic Park logo..
  • winnch, on 12/19/2007, -6/+15As the owner of a design company, I say only this: Oof. These are terrible logos. Glad the world isn't going web 2.0.
    • osbjmg, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1Sure, but what would your employees say? They're the talent right?
  • houndeyex, on 12/19/2007, -21/+7Someone get a mirror, quick. I feel a crash coming on!
    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-CHekmzByJIJ: ...
  • Bridea, on 12/19/2007, -7/+1brilliant.
  • diggstown, on 12/19/2007, -4/+1Was not expecting the logo at the bottom.
    • pixelate, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1I like it better than the real PS3 logo.... maybe the only one on the page I can say that about.

      Where is that font from, it's bothering me that I can't remember... I think it's the same as the one they used in the recent "TMNT" movie.
  • andrewry, on 12/19/2007, -8/+10This has been on digg several times before, and at least credit the original thread on YH.
    • echolalia, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3I noticed that as well. And completely missing the original thread. I feel bad for the creators of these.
    • kenvibe, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Just to let you know, I updated the page and gave credit where credit was due.
  • klethron, on 12/19/2007, -3/+24I like how some of these come from the former digg post here: http://digg.com/design/Corporate_World_Web_2_0_Log ...

    More of the same crap making its way onto the front page.
  • paulie, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2....aaaaaaand the site is down. that was quick.
  • absolutzombie, on 12/19/2007, -8/+1lol 100 diggs and down. weak sauce.
  • arjung, on 12/19/2007, -2/+4mirror, mirror on the wall?
  • josephlucas, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Actually I really like the at&t logo. Just a slight change from what they have now
    • flarn2006, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4I don't see any change. What is it?
      • shahofkings, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0The blue area is transparent
        • joehoyle, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1the at&t has transparent blue, they added it to show they were a transparent company, that they have no secrets etc.
  • Takuro, on 12/19/2007, -2/+10The server died too quickly for duggmirror or even coralcache to catch.

    Oh well...

    (O.T.: Why do Digg comments randomly triple space paragraphs?)
    • Mommy8me, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Weak. This website must not be web 2.0
    • kenvibe, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Just to let you know, I updated the page and gave credit where it was due.
  • JasonCox, on 12/19/2007, -3/+11Buried because those have been posted on Digg before and because Web 2.0 died last week, didn't you get the memo? I sent it right after I sent the memo about you not using the new TPS Report cover sheets on your memo.
  • WebWorker, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6This one seems to have caught most of the images
    http://web.archive.org/http://enthree.com/files/ra ...
  • theXenon, on 12/19/2007, -3/+40Burried for sending me to a slow site with 60 images with reflections.
  • Thorpy, on 12/19/2007, -5/+5http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=198311028&size ... - Mirror?
  • Thorpy, on 12/19/2007, -7/+2http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=198311028&size ...

    Mirror
  • MarrowMan, on 12/19/2007, -4/+8Wow what a post full of useless *****.
    • shahofkings, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0I agree. The person could've turned the whole world into Web 2.0 instead of wasting their time with this...
  • jordan314, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The world would look like cannot connect to server
  • tooloney, on 12/19/2007, -2/+14why does web 2.0 have to make everything look just a little more gay?
  • muniak, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2I think they all look the same level of badness. I'm sure they would come up with a lot better logos.
  • Lokomis, on 12/19/2007, -0/+20Web 2.0: We gots gradients and *****.
  • sillyjoobs, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5What would happen if the world went Web 2.0?

    The world would be about 300 times more gay and thus unbearable to live in.
  • mikehill33, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8 < {shiny} > tag < {/shiny}>
  • kingmustard, on 12/19/2007, -5/+3I, for one, like "Web 2.0" logos. Clean and simple.
  • dreesemonkey, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Yay, web 2.0 parody! Relevant, even!
  • n0xin, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2I was looking at a UPS truck yesterday and their logo is *already* web2.0. http://www.ups.com/img/global_logo.gif
    Buzzwords aside, I find it a very good-looking logo.
    • xatx2, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1i think that logo definitely came before 2.0
  • ext237, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1LOL, the Enron logo doesn't work. The logo at http://www.enronoffline.com/eo/ is more fitting.

    [ducking, running!]
  • Fubeman, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2What does Web 2.0 (". . . Technologies such as weblogs, social bookmarking, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, social software, web application programming interfaces (APIs), and online web services, etc., etc.") have to do with Crappy, Reflective, Miami Color Palette, with no imagination logos? Either they're looking at the same "Web 2.0" (if there can be such a thing) crappy sites or don't even know what the hell Web 2.0 even means.

    Lame.
    • maexus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Well, this is the design fad hot right now. "Web 2.0" is also hot right now. It's much like how people call the computer monitor the "computer" and the tower the "cpu"
  • TjLAXattack, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Dunder-Mifflinfinity
  • RaiderWolf, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Do you guys watch the NFL? Someone thought it would be a brilliant idea to start using Web 2.0 for that (it is TV mind you). I'm still angry about that. :)
    • Ductapemaster, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Nerds don't watch football. They watch Pr0n
  • pinehurst, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1Old. Old. Old. How many other sites will steal these same images and use diggers to garner traffic and ad dollars? Stop falling for it.
  • firefurby, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1looks like someone found out how to make reflections and went crazy o.O
  • aymiSsyOu, on 12/19/2007, -2/+0This is awesome!
  • jobu70, on 12/19/2007, -6/+2Why does everyone think that Web 2.0 is a design style? Hey want to hear a secret? IT'S NOT. Why are you proliferating this huge misconception.

    Also, none of these techniques are new. What this should be called is "Logos that stole the gradient reflection idea from Apple"
  • xatx2, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4give me a vomit bag
  • orb_nsc, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I for one welcome our Pabst Blue Ribbon 2.0, uh, overlords.
  • Madpony, on 12/19/2007, -1/+7Does "Web 2.0" have a consistent definition yet? It seems like it's becoming a catch-all adjective to me. Can my pants be Web 2.0?
    • omega1045, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Only if you swing that way.
    • Fubeman, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Sure, those pants may be Web 2.0, but that shirt . . . I don't know . . . "dude that shirt is SO Web 1.0."
  • Duositex, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Some of these are ripped off of older posts on the same topic. And let me say this: Whoever thought they were clever adding new ones to the original is absolutely terrible at logo design. You can see the difference in quality quite easy between the fake fakes and the real fakes.
  • CaviMike, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1It's not Web 2.0, it's retro. For christs sake, haven't any of you guys seem the 'new' cars? It's not even new anymore.
  • Jargonaut06, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3LOL @ Quakr 2.Oats
  • Veign, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Lame
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.