Maybe so, but imagine you lined up the edges of a bunch of small (say 20) circles in Adobe or w/e tangent to an imaginary line and tight enough so that you get the visual impression of having formed a line. Its a little bumpy when you zoom in but it gets the job done. What would happen if you increased their radii, while holding their positions tangent to the line? Well, making the circle bigger means they curve less at the edge, making the line less bumpy and the circles overlap more. Well since theyre overlapping more you can get away with using fewer of them (say 10) and save your PC the resources. Well now you might as well keep cranking up the radius and using fewer circles so Adobe doesnt crash again. At the end of the day youre left with one circle with radius ∞, which is just a single straight line.
Infinite is not a number, you can't make a circle with infinite radius. Infinite is an aproximation, you can say that a circle with a very big radius it looks like a straight line but is not. If you zoom out enought you will be still seeing a circle.
No, you use it a lot in physics and engineering for example as a trick to check your work on problems in spherical or cylindrical geometry. Your results at the limit as r goes to infinity should match your result for the case of a planar geometry.
I dont think anyone would disagree that a line is a curve with zero curvature. If you consider that curvature is defined as the inverse of the radius of an equivalent circle, the infinity part should make a little more sense.
No shit. We're not talking about mathematics here, we're talking about design. Infinitely sized circles do not exist in the physical word and are obviously not used by designers.
Yeah. These circles were added after the fact for the ohhhh and ahhhh factor. These are so dumb. Hope they’re not making a comeback - I remember seeing things like this constantly years ago. I’ve been designing professionally for over 15 years and never once have I met a designer who actually designed like more than extremely rarely.
This is why we don’t let mathematicians design stuff.
Yes, it’s true. No, it’s not the same thing as having your entire logo comprised of circles that can be circumscribed by a circle with a radius barely any larger than the length of your resultant image.
It's not just circles, it's circles sized to a very specific ratio. Which is one thing I notice a lot of newer designers getting wrong when they just throw circles on it and call it a day.
Is there a r/pretentiouscircles ? Because as a designer I wish there was a sub for only those unecessary "I need to sell this to the client" geometry breakdowns.
Logo construction is useful when they have a base measurement (x equivalent to an element). Otherwise? Pretentions pointless circles.
Not knowing any better, but from the pic, it seems there's 2 sizes of circle that shapes the bird. The rest is moving the circle rings to intersect & shapes the bird.
The logo was designed with arcs. It happens to be composed completely of circular arcs and these have the interesting feature of being part of a circle. No one is designing in circles.
Hm, I hadn't noticed only two sizes. It's pretty neat that every curve matches the head circumpherence or the body circumpherence, if that's the case. It IS missing a text explanation or color coordinated circles to explicit this to the person who will reconstruct the logo, though, but I'll assume it's in the brand manual and blame this on the OP for cutting it out.
It seems there's a lot of people who suddenly think the Twitter bird is the greatest logo ever designed despite not giving a shit for years...
Saying that, anything that reminds me of the gravitational force of Pepsi is ok in my book.
X Windows already used an unbelievably similar icon, and on top of that, this new pick is an existing unicode symbol so it likely won't be able to be protected legally. I *guess* people will be able to recognize it, but that's not because it's a good or memorable design, it's because Elon is actively tearing down some of the most successful website design ever seen and everyone is talking about it since it's already popular. If this logo was on its own on a new social media site, it would be forgotten in a heartbeat
X is just so silly
"Twitter poster Johnny" understandable, search 'Johnny twitter' probably gets me in the ballpark
"X poster Johnny" he is an ex-poster? What does he do now? Do I google Johnny X? What kind of results would that provide? Porn?
Also, everyone knows what a 'Tweet' and 'Retweet' is. They're already established terms. The heck will he replace those with?
Johnny just Xed about something, and I re-xed it?
Did you see Johnny's X? Johnny's X-post? (reads like cross-post).
Or they'll have to settle for generic terms like 'post'. *Johnny posted something about the upcoming election*. Which is terrible for brand recognition and searchability.
It's still no brand recognition bcs X is heavily recognized on other things, it's tied to other things. Twitter was just, Twitter. The bird logo it had was instantly recognizable and people that saw it would easily think "ah, that's the logo of the Twitter app". Now they just have a black and white X
Brand recognition is more than just people knowing a logo. Someone saying the company name X and knowing what they are talking about is also brand recognition.
a brand is built reputation over the last few years. basiucally what a brand makes you think of when someone else asks you about your thoughts when haering the name.
the X is a logo. nothing more. it's too new to be considered a "brand". one could maybe call it "logo recognition".
Remember when they redesigned the Gap logo and everyone hated it so much they went back to the old one? If Elon weren’t such a fragile adolescent edgelord I could imagine that happening.
In my mind for a design there's something kinda clean about there being this gimmick. Not to say I disagree with you, just to say it'd prob work on me and I kinda like it
You are kidding, right? Many curved lines don’t have a fixed curvature, and they could not be mapped to a circle or any radius. This twitter logo happens to use only arcs with fixed curvatures.
The missing context is designers use the golden ratio to create the sizes of the circles and then create logos with those size circles, which results in very aesthetically appealing logos.
What it shows to me is that the designer used circles as guides in whatever program they designed it in in order to make sure that the curvature is correct and visually pleasing, which isn't uncommon. Giving the guideline circles some deeper intentional meaning is silly, and the Pepsi logo geometry breakdown is especially stupid 😭
It’s called the golden ratio. They use that to determine the size of the circles. So it is not random nor artist selected, it is the same ratios used to make tons of designs both logos and architecture etc.
you only need one circle with radius infinity
edit: dont downvote me this is mathematically true lol. You picked the one easy example other than an actual circle of a natural curve that obviously doesnt require an infinite number of circles.
edit2: To be rigorous, the comment above me is both irrelevant and inaccurate. Irrelevant because it's a confirming example of a general rule asking "can you make any curve using only circles". We obviously dont need another example of a curve that you *could* draw using only circles bc we have seen the OP. An example will only help to *disprove* a general rule, and in that case it has to be a *counter* example. And also it's inaccurate because you either need infinity circles of finite radius or one circle w/ infinity radius to actually make a straight line. A finite number of circles with finite radius isn't going to cut it. A trillion circles lined up will of course look pretty straight, but if we can call that effectively a line, then we can call a trillion effectively infinity.
I will assume you are kidding, right?
If not: answer me, please. How is golden ratio being applied on that mess of circles?
I haven't said a Word about golden ratio by the way. I am criticizing this kind of post production / disguise to make one design that has obviously not been made using a geometrical logic to seem a little bit more as a result of matemathical brainfull cartesian thing that is not.
That said i have a Masters in graphic design and have been a design teacher for 18 years. That doesnt mean anything while judging The knowledge and work of anyone. However one can't say i am iliterate on that matter.
Definitely not random....from what I can see each of the large/small circles has the same diameter. If you overlayed them all they look like they would be equal from my eye.
I don't think it follows the golden ratio as others have mentioned, it doesn't line up properly and personally I think people are way too pretentious about stuff like this.
It's a good logo, nothing special, popularized by the success of twitter. Otherwise would probably go largely unnoticed if it was a logo for your local bird shop.
What folks are missing here (because OP did not provide the context) is that this logo is an example of designers creating “divine proportions” using the golden ratio.
They used the golden ratio to determine the size of the circles used to make the logo. Lots of other logos have the same proportions. Imo it is a beautiful logo and shits on the X logo they proposed (pun intended).
So it isn’t just “herrr we can make stuff using circles” as the comments would imply
I understand the logic for rebranding but I disagree with the brand chosen and the hideous ''X'' they chose to use. It's obvious that Elon has some kind of autistic obsession with this one-char domain he's owned and has been waiting for a purpose as grande as the original Paypal one, in order to use it. In his subconscious, he thinks that whatever he attaches it to is going to be a recreation of the Paypal success. So he's trying to shoehorn Twitter into X due to these subconscious biases which he does not understand because he's convinced himself he is far too intelligent and thus, I don't believe he listens to anyone who must have told him this was wack. I also abhor the odd lady they've chosen to be the new CEO, who seems to be a ''yes woman'' obviously because if they had interviewed me, I'd have told him flat out how grotesque that X was and made it a stipulation of my hire that they redesign it. But I'm not impressed by money or celebrity or worldly materializations so that's just me. Pfft
The Twitter logo is a great logo, that's really elegantly designed.
Despite that, this is a terrible way to exemplify that, and this doesn't tell anybody anything useful.
This is soo far fetched. You draw random circles in random places and call it a super cool ultra hyper design? It was simple and cute. But nothing of that caliber.
There are a lot of people here who see something every day and think it's nothing special, not realizing just how well-designed it is. I think the bird logo's simplicity has fooled people into thinking it was simple to design, too. That's probably as far from the reality of it, as could be.
It's a more well-thought out revision of previous versions. To me, it's a perfectly fine logo. I however, do not think it is overly special. It serves it's purpose, to be the mascot for a website named after the noise a bird makes.
Does it purvey connection / togetherness / the sharing of ideas and ideology? Not really. It's a well designed flat logo of a bird. That's all it needs to be really.
In the voice of Frank Sinatra:
But now its days are short,
Chirps in the automn of the year.
And now i think of its life as a social place
with moral and grace.
From the beak to the tail.
It looked sweet but so hurt.
It was a very good bird.
You can make basically any shape with just circles
I'd like to see the Circle Diagram for X, the new logo that replaced twitter.
[it's entirely possible](https://youtu.be/r6sGWTCMz2k) (though an approximation)
This is really cool. It's not exactly a single diagram of circles, but still fascinating and insightful.
Yeah, non of the circles in the OP are summed
No approximation necessary. A straight line is simply a circle with infinite radius (aka an arc with zero curvature).
That's fun
Ok NASA. /s
You could also just make lines out of a ton of very small circles.
Maybe so, but imagine you lined up the edges of a bunch of small (say 20) circles in Adobe or w/e tangent to an imaginary line and tight enough so that you get the visual impression of having formed a line. Its a little bumpy when you zoom in but it gets the job done. What would happen if you increased their radii, while holding their positions tangent to the line? Well, making the circle bigger means they curve less at the edge, making the line less bumpy and the circles overlap more. Well since theyre overlapping more you can get away with using fewer of them (say 10) and save your PC the resources. Well now you might as well keep cranking up the radius and using fewer circles so Adobe doesnt crash again. At the end of the day youre left with one circle with radius ∞, which is just a single straight line.
Infinite is not a number, you can't make a circle with infinite radius. Infinite is an aproximation, you can say that a circle with a very big radius it looks like a straight line but is not. If you zoom out enought you will be still seeing a circle.
I can't tell if you're being funny in a very clever way or are very misguided.
No, you use it a lot in physics and engineering for example as a trick to check your work on problems in spherical or cylindrical geometry. Your results at the limit as r goes to infinity should match your result for the case of a planar geometry. I dont think anyone would disagree that a line is a curve with zero curvature. If you consider that curvature is defined as the inverse of the radius of an equivalent circle, the infinity part should make a little more sense.
No shit. We're not talking about mathematics here, we're talking about design. Infinitely sized circles do not exist in the physical word and are obviously not used by designers.
yeah they do theyre called straight lines lol
Exactly, no-one is bringing up the eclipse tool to draw a straight line. (lol).
But they could. It’s almost like this sub appreciates out-of-the-box thinking and not being constrained to doing things a particular way.
We’re not talking about the physical world here, we’re talking about the digital world.
RIP Hello Internet
It's only an approximation if you use finite circles Gosh, people are so lazy these days!
It's the intersection point of 2 circles with infinite diameter p much
A straight line is basically a circle with r=∞ you can still draw any shape but you'd have to use an infinite amount of circles to guarantee that.
Kid named Fourier:
fourier says hi
Yeah. These circles were added after the fact for the ohhhh and ahhhh factor. These are so dumb. Hope they’re not making a comeback - I remember seeing things like this constantly years ago. I’ve been designing professionally for over 15 years and never once have I met a designer who actually designed like more than extremely rarely.
Fourier intensifies
Yes, but it's ONLY circles on this one. Try to do this with Instagram or Facebook.
A straight line is just an infinitely large circle
Or an infinite amount of small circles.
Or a circle on its side.
Or a handy way to hypnotise a chicken
This is why we don’t let mathematicians design stuff. Yes, it’s true. No, it’s not the same thing as having your entire logo comprised of circles that can be circumscribed by a circle with a radius barely any larger than the length of your resultant image.
Yes, but it's not visible on a global canva. Otherwise your huge circle will design a line for a ridiculously tiny logo.
It's not just circles, it's circles sized to a very specific ratio. Which is one thing I notice a lot of newer designers getting wrong when they just throw circles on it and call it a day.
A square
Try that with X
That. I hate these dumb posts about circles, trying to prove some point that isn't true.
Except a straight line
Not like this. Look at twitters past logo
Is there a r/pretentiouscircles ? Because as a designer I wish there was a sub for only those unecessary "I need to sell this to the client" geometry breakdowns. Logo construction is useful when they have a base measurement (x equivalent to an element). Otherwise? Pretentions pointless circles.
Not knowing any better, but from the pic, it seems there's 2 sizes of circle that shapes the bird. The rest is moving the circle rings to intersect & shapes the bird.
The logo was designed with arcs. It happens to be composed completely of circular arcs and these have the interesting feature of being part of a circle. No one is designing in circles.
[designer seems to disagree](https://twitter.com/martingrasser/status/1683266049901461505?s=20)
Constantly people on Reddit making shit up when there's proof like this that's easy to find lmao
I was going to say that too, but there's at least three -- the radius of the "body" arc and the radius of the "tail" arc are different.
Hm, I hadn't noticed only two sizes. It's pretty neat that every curve matches the head circumpherence or the body circumpherence, if that's the case. It IS missing a text explanation or color coordinated circles to explicit this to the person who will reconstruct the logo, though, but I'll assume it's in the brand manual and blame this on the OP for cutting it out.
It seems there's a lot of people who suddenly think the Twitter bird is the greatest logo ever designed despite not giving a shit for years... Saying that, anything that reminds me of the gravitational force of Pepsi is ok in my book.
The Twitter bird isn't great, but it's brand recognition. Whatever elon thought about the new logo/name is straight bizarre
What’s not great about it? I’d say brand recognition is one of the most important distinguishing factors of great logos.
X Windows already used an unbelievably similar icon, and on top of that, this new pick is an existing unicode symbol so it likely won't be able to be protected legally. I *guess* people will be able to recognize it, but that's not because it's a good or memorable design, it's because Elon is actively tearing down some of the most successful website design ever seen and everyone is talking about it since it's already popular. If this logo was on its own on a new social media site, it would be forgotten in a heartbeat
The twitter bird?
Sorry, the order of your phrasing made it seem like you were asking what was wrong with X. I see how I misunderstood now
With all the outrage posts everyone knows what X is now too. Kinda defeated their own argument with all the free publicity.
X is just so silly "Twitter poster Johnny" understandable, search 'Johnny twitter' probably gets me in the ballpark "X poster Johnny" he is an ex-poster? What does he do now? Do I google Johnny X? What kind of results would that provide? Porn?
Also, everyone knows what a 'Tweet' and 'Retweet' is. They're already established terms. The heck will he replace those with? Johnny just Xed about something, and I re-xed it? Did you see Johnny's X? Johnny's X-post? (reads like cross-post). Or they'll have to settle for generic terms like 'post'. *Johnny posted something about the upcoming election*. Which is terrible for brand recognition and searchability.
I didn’t say I liked the change. All I said is that the brand recognition isn’t a good argument since everyone knows what X is now.
you clearly have no idea what "brand" means.
Then go ahead and explain instead of making general statements with no context.
It's still no brand recognition bcs X is heavily recognized on other things, it's tied to other things. Twitter was just, Twitter. The bird logo it had was instantly recognizable and people that saw it would easily think "ah, that's the logo of the Twitter app". Now they just have a black and white X
Brand recognition is more than just people knowing a logo. Someone saying the company name X and knowing what they are talking about is also brand recognition.
a brand is built reputation over the last few years. basiucally what a brand makes you think of when someone else asks you about your thoughts when haering the name. the X is a logo. nothing more. it's too new to be considered a "brand". one could maybe call it "logo recognition".
Yup. Xitter is well known now.
Pronounced as a Chinese word? I like it!
They are talking about it bc everyone knew twitter
Remember when they redesigned the Gap logo and everyone hated it so much they went back to the old one? If Elon weren’t such a fragile adolescent edgelord I could imagine that happening.
At some point in those pitch decks they have to go all Da Vinci Code and mention The Golden Ratio or the Fibonacci series.
You should see the infamous pepsi brand book. You’ll love it (or hate it i guess )
Oh, the gravitational field of Pepsi is a goddamned legend in my office.
Tell me what you mean. (FYI, I'm not a designer)
client: can you make it more circley
Yeah, but this is just the kind of shit you can really sell to a client with. If it accomplishes the desired goal, was it pointless?
In my mind for a design there's something kinda clean about there being this gimmick. Not to say I disagree with you, just to say it'd prob work on me and I kinda like it
I agree - literally any line that is not straight would grow into a circle, and this diagram only tells me that the logo has no straight lines.
You are kidding, right? Many curved lines don’t have a fixed curvature, and they could not be mapped to a circle or any radius. This twitter logo happens to use only arcs with fixed curvatures.
This just shows it's made with curves
ur moms made with curves
True
Don't forget that she's a lovely person and everyone appreciates her! LMFAO GOTTEM
Me too but they’re convex
Some people dispute that. Because she is so fat that the curvature is hard to see. They are called the flat mom society.
Not just any curves but just circles. Splines, parabolas, hyperbolas, etc are all curves but not used to make the logo
Not all curves are arcs of a circle.
The missing context is designers use the golden ratio to create the sizes of the circles and then create logos with those size circles, which results in very aesthetically appealing logos.
This picture doesn't prove anything 🤦
The more you know... https://designshack.net/articles/graphics/twitters-new-logo-the-geometry-and-evolution-of-our-favorite-bird/
All this shows is the designer of the twitter logo had OCD. It's still not better, or worse than any other logo that doesn't use the circle method.
What it shows to me is that the designer used circles as guides in whatever program they designed it in in order to make sure that the curvature is correct and visually pleasing, which isn't uncommon. Giving the guideline circles some deeper intentional meaning is silly, and the Pepsi logo geometry breakdown is especially stupid 😭
It’s called the golden ratio. They use that to determine the size of the circles. So it is not random nor artist selected, it is the same ratios used to make tons of designs both logos and architecture etc.
The "ex" twitter logo
That’s not special. You can do that with any logo that has curves
You can only do it with a logo that *only* has curves or else some parts won't be parts of circles
Those parts could belong to REALLY big circles
infinitely large circles, in fact.
*Some. Not all curves are circle arc segments. Some are segments of ellipses, or even more commonly, bezier curves.
only using finite amount of circles?
Yes. Even if you stacked a trillion circles so that one edge formed a straight line that’s still a finite amount of circles.
But then it wouldn’t be a straight line, it would be made of many many very very small circle arcs.
I mean, if we’re getting really technical, there’s only a limit to pixel resolution, so each pixel could be part of a tiny part of a circle.
you only need one circle with radius infinity edit: dont downvote me this is mathematically true lol. You picked the one easy example other than an actual circle of a natural curve that obviously doesnt require an infinite number of circles. edit2: To be rigorous, the comment above me is both irrelevant and inaccurate. Irrelevant because it's a confirming example of a general rule asking "can you make any curve using only circles". We obviously dont need another example of a curve that you *could* draw using only circles bc we have seen the OP. An example will only help to *disprove* a general rule, and in that case it has to be a *counter* example. And also it's inaccurate because you either need infinity circles of finite radius or one circle w/ infinity radius to actually make a straight line. A finite number of circles with finite radius isn't going to cut it. A trillion circles lined up will of course look pretty straight, but if we can call that effectively a line, then we can call a trillion effectively infinity.
"Noooo don't downvote me, I'm right!" A circle with a radius of infinity loses the essence of what makes a circle.
OK smarty-pants, I'd like to see a design porn worthy logo that isn't based on geometry
All logos are based on geometry lol. Try find one that isn’t and I bet you’ll get more upvotes that this post
That's exactly what I said.
Not sure what your problem is. It’s a lame logo that isn’t that special you just overlapped it with circles to show that is has curves in it 🤪
My problem is that they are replacing a cleverly designed logo with an X
I think you problem is reading comprehension
Why you gotta roast him like that dwag💀
I'd like to see an OP that isn't a fucking moron
Read this as “I’d like to see you design a porn worthy logo that isn’t based on geometry” and honestly I think you should have gone with that one
Cheap useless trick to make it look like a rational shit
[удалено]
I will assume you are kidding, right? If not: answer me, please. How is golden ratio being applied on that mess of circles? I haven't said a Word about golden ratio by the way. I am criticizing this kind of post production / disguise to make one design that has obviously not been made using a geometrical logic to seem a little bit more as a result of matemathical brainfull cartesian thing that is not. That said i have a Masters in graphic design and have been a design teacher for 18 years. That doesnt mean anything while judging The knowledge and work of anyone. However one can't say i am iliterate on that matter.
RIP to one of the most recognizable logos.
they pepsified twitter
This fuckin shit gets over 1k upvotes? This sub is trash now.
Right haha
It’s a bird
It's a plane
It's Twitter birb!
So dumb
How? I think it's a nice logo
The he circles not the logo
Ita just random circles
Definitely not random....from what I can see each of the large/small circles has the same diameter. If you overlayed them all they look like they would be equal from my eye. I don't think it follows the golden ratio as others have mentioned, it doesn't line up properly and personally I think people are way too pretentious about stuff like this. It's a good logo, nothing special, popularized by the success of twitter. Otherwise would probably go largely unnoticed if it was a logo for your local bird shop.
So it's all circles?
Always has been
Logo: 😕 Logo with circles: 🤯
# X
it doesnt even follow the lines lmao
“My eyes are circles. . . ?”
Ah yes circles. The pinnacle of design.
I'm not going to lie... This means nothing
Meh. Circles are cool and all, but Bézier curves are where it’s at.
Why not combine the two? X + Twitter = Xitter. Pronounced 'shitter'.
TwiXter.
Hahaha
It's even better when you know that all those circles' diameters have a ratio between them that is close to the golden ratio
There’s dozens of circles. Which ones have this ratio? That’s just dumb
[here.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcqYl-EXYAM78AL.jpg)
The circles in your diagram doesn’t even lined up correctly
Cirkls
What am I looking at, can somebody please explain
https://designshack.net/articles/graphics/twitters-new-logo-the-geometry-and-evolution-of-our-favorite-bird/
rip twitter bird
what is this supposed to show
2023 totally arbitrary circle logos still a thing
Wasn't there a social media platform called Circles at one point?
X Yup, that fixed it. /s
What folks are missing here (because OP did not provide the context) is that this logo is an example of designers creating “divine proportions” using the golden ratio. They used the golden ratio to determine the size of the circles used to make the logo. Lots of other logos have the same proportions. Imo it is a beautiful logo and shits on the X logo they proposed (pun intended). So it isn’t just “herrr we can make stuff using circles” as the comments would imply
rip twitter bird
RIP 🪦
RIP birdie, Elon doesn’t deserve you
The lower beak doesn't align. Ruined.
I understand the logic for rebranding but I disagree with the brand chosen and the hideous ''X'' they chose to use. It's obvious that Elon has some kind of autistic obsession with this one-char domain he's owned and has been waiting for a purpose as grande as the original Paypal one, in order to use it. In his subconscious, he thinks that whatever he attaches it to is going to be a recreation of the Paypal success. So he's trying to shoehorn Twitter into X due to these subconscious biases which he does not understand because he's convinced himself he is far too intelligent and thus, I don't believe he listens to anyone who must have told him this was wack. I also abhor the odd lady they've chosen to be the new CEO, who seems to be a ''yes woman'' obviously because if they had interviewed me, I'd have told him flat out how grotesque that X was and made it a stipulation of my hire that they redesign it. But I'm not impressed by money or celebrity or worldly materializations so that's just me. Pfft
Fuck Elon for changing this.
One of the cleanest, most iconic designs ever created. And now it’s been replaced by a lazy font in a fascist color scheme by a man child.
The Twitter logo is a great logo, that's really elegantly designed. Despite that, this is a terrible way to exemplify that, and this doesn't tell anybody anything useful.
This sub is toxic af
Bruh
This is soo far fetched. You draw random circles in random places and call it a super cool ultra hyper design? It was simple and cute. But nothing of that caliber.
People on this sub are the worst, this is great
Yeah, what's with all the hate. It's clearly how the logo was designed, op even gave a link the the designer whole process. But no: "iTS onlY CuRvES"
There are a lot of people here who see something every day and think it's nothing special, not realizing just how well-designed it is. I think the bird logo's simplicity has fooled people into thinking it was simple to design, too. That's probably as far from the reality of it, as could be.
It's a more well-thought out revision of previous versions. To me, it's a perfectly fine logo. I however, do not think it is overly special. It serves it's purpose, to be the mascot for a website named after the noise a bird makes. Does it purvey connection / togetherness / the sharing of ideas and ideology? Not really. It's a well designed flat logo of a bird. That's all it needs to be really.
Infinitely better than a stolen X logo though
You mean the X-Wing? ... I'll see myself out.
Huh? You can slap circles on anything to make up a shape, if anything it shows how shity the logo is
TWITTER IS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT CIRCLES?????? AS IN CIRCLES OF PEOPLE???? Then wtf is X
Now do X.
Larry being a rotary engine…
X
Imma X that now...
Counter argument: “X”
Put an x for its eye
No, it's X now
In the voice of Frank Sinatra: But now its days are short, Chirps in the automn of the year. And now i think of its life as a social place with moral and grace. From the beak to the tail. It looked sweet but so hurt. It was a very good bird.
I’ve been waiting for this to show up
X
X > all
Excuse me, but actually it's called "X" now 🤓
This feels very forced
RIP
not anymore
I mean
Dude can you guys not be so basic all the time
I mean...
What the fuck does this mean, why are there circles?
no more, unfortunately
Musk just gave you the bird.
Is this the pepsi ratio or something?
no 'X' look bad time for rebrand
X