If you hold the diagram backwards, it looks like a steady evolution from a muddy and nearly indistinguishable set of random blobs and into a set of strong, minimal designs that scan instantly and are easily distinct and clear.
At least it’s not google’s product logo differentiation failure.
It’s pretty competitive with it TBH. I guess Google is probably worse just because of deliberately choosing exactly the same general visual appearance for literally every single logo for some reason. This one at least has different colors, for some of them.
I think the 2013 set was probably peak UX, common design language, quick at a glance differentiation via colors, a giant letter, and a logo to convey functionality.
After 2003, the only set I liked was 2018. Even the current iteration looks like a bad evolution.
2013 is my fav: clear distinction (both letter and color) while holding significance. Using 2013 icons, you could guess what each software does, even if you are not familiar with them.
2007-2013 feel like the best designs. The icons are both unique and somewhat descriptive of what the application does.
It seems like Microsoft feels like their applications are so ubiquitous that they don’t need to be user friendly, but still seems like bad design.
Ah yes, teams has reached its final form… msn messenger.
Blog article about the latest update https://microsoft.design/articles/fluid-forms-vibrant-colors/
