7im wrote:The blue logo is brand new. I don't think it's going to change again for a while.
Logo's don't sell a product, they are for brand recognition. Salespeople sell products, or the products sell themselves.
Does the Nike "swoosh" make you think their shoes are faster than Adidas shoes? Is a single red swoosh more catchy? More attention grabbing? It's actually kind of dull if you ask me. Does that logo make you want to buy their shoes more than a few stripes down the side like Adidas? Stripes are boring too. Or do you identify with the brand and the company behind the logo? With Michael Jordan high tops? With Tiger Woods golf shoes? With NFL jerseys? Did you buy that Manning jersey for the Nike swoosh, or the Team behind it?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of doing things to get people's attention, to advertise the F@H as a product, and to get more people to participate. And I think Stanford is already working on the best eye-candy. The Screen Saver on the PS3 is very eye-catching, and Stanford is working to bring a protein view with close to that quality to the PC client. You'll soon have a screen saver better than "Screensaver Lifesaver."
Just because something is brand new, that doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t improve. Besides, it doesn’t look to me that it took a real long time to create.
Well I think every bit helps, but if someone was to put a signature in email or banner on their page, the logo is the first line of advertisement. That’s the core of Google business, etc.
You are missing something about Nike and other such brands. That is a world recognized brand and that check or whatever has been imprinted on human beings since birth practically. That’s not the same case as Folding@Home or its logo. How many people would see that helix (is that a DNA or what?) and through the abstraction recognize that as FAH.
PS3’s are nice, but there are a lot more idle computers out there. For example, many kids have computers. No kid knows what “folding” is never mind linking folding to that arrow twisting thing. If had guess, it represents the direction of replication of DNA, right? Most people outside of college genetics would be like…What the heck does that mean??…never mind seeing the reference.
