Comments 12

How will your Favorite Logos look in Web 2.0?

Categories: Web 2.0 Logos
Written By: Nora Reed

Ever since Web 2.0 made its debut in 2003, it has changed the outlook of many websites. More and more websites are opting modern web 2.0 technologies that demand user interaction and hints to an improved form of the World Wide Web. As part of this increasing popularity of Web 2.0, many designers have created Web 2.0 versions of some famous logos.

But in amidst of all that, some designers failed to maintain the proper consistency and concept in many logos, while some created interesting web 2.0 versions with a modern look. Below are some of the Web 2.0 versions of famous brands and entities, along with the original versions to compare the transformation:



Fedex Logo Web 2.0

Fedex Logo

Comment(s): The original version of the FedEx logo looks much better than the transformed image. The web 2.0 version of the FedEx logo fails to carry the hidden arrow in it for which the logo is famous. In constrast, it exposed the arrow in an absurd way, damaging the complete look of the FedEx logo.

Enron Logo Web 2.0

Eron Logo

Comment(s): I really hate this logo. Both the versions are nothing but utter disappointment and useless, especially the web 2.0 version.

Citibank Logo Web 2.0

Citibank Logo

Comment(s): Nice renovation of the CitiBank logo into a Web 2.0 version. But I would prefer to keep the same color scheme as of the original one.

abc Logo web2.0

abc logo

Comment(s): The original one is much better but yes, the web 2.0 version of the abc logo is more contemporary.

Adobe Logo Web 2.0

Adobe Logo

Comment(s): By far the most interesting and the best web 2.0 logo in the bunch. The style is pretty much similar to the original logo, but has a modern look added to it.

National Geographic Logo Web 2.0

National Geographic Logo

Comment(s): I really like this logo. But what is the flickr typeface doing in the National Geographic logo. I understand that it’s a joke, but still…

Craiglist Logo Web 2.0

Craiglist Logo

Comment(s): Craigslist is probably one of those logos that desperately requires a makeover. The webpage has a dry and obsolete interface, and the logo is even more dissapointing. Thus, the web 2.0 version of the logo is a satisfying outlook. I strongly recommend craigslist to adopt the web 2.0 look.

Camel Logo Web 2.0

Camel Logo

Comment(s): Pretty much similar to the orginal logo, though I like what they did with the color combination.

Coca Cola Logo Web 2.0

Coca Cola Logo

Comment(s): Another intelligent design that is difficult to alter. The typefaced Coca-Cola logo is famous for its Spencerian script logotype, which is fashionable in its own sense. Though, the web 2.0 version of the Coca-Cola logo is almost exactly the same, the introduction of a red and blue color scheme gives the whole logo a modern look.

Apple Logo Web 2.0

Apple Logo

Comment(s): Apple is one of those logos in the word that does not require a name to make it recognizable. Yet, that did not stop it to become the most famous and liked logo of all times. The reason behind this special identity is the simplicity of the logo. Additionally, this simplicity has led the Apple logo to adapt different versions, making every new version even more successful than the other. I find the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo creative and strong. However, the only objection I have for the web 2.0 version is its adaptability. Unlike the original one, the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo cannot be used on any medium, except the web, due to the inclusion of color element in it. But overall, I think the web 2.0 version of the Apple logo is contemporary and artistic. Maybe, if a range of colors is available, the web 2.0 version will look good on Apple’s iPods.

ups Logo Web 2.0

ups Logo

Comment(s): Not a big difference in either versions except for the color scheme. The web 2.0 version of the UPS logo has an unusual contrast of colors in it, which is a bit disappointing.

yahoo Logo Web 2.0

yahoo Logo

Comment(s): I like the original version better than the web 2.0 one. The orginal version of the Yahoo Logo looks more modern than the latter one.

Nike Logo Web 2.0

Nike Logo

Comment(s): The ‘Swoosh’ in the nike logo is the most intelligent design of all times. That’s why, it is impossible to change the swoosh design, no matter whatever tool or software you use. On other note, the above web 2.0 design is an exceptionally well done effort.

Which web 2.0 version logo is your favorite?

Among the list, and beyond it, which web 2.0 logo you liked the most? Feel free to express your views and reviews on the logos displayed above and also, if you have made or come up with other web 2.0 versions of famous logos, do tell us about those too.

Share it / Bookmark it

 Like this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed!

12 Responses to “How will your Favorite Logos look in Web 2.0?”

  1. michael Says:

    haha. great. the guys over at the big noob actually redid the craigslist site for fun…quite interesting

    the adobe and enron logos arent too bad either.

  2. Alison Says:

    This is when you know that web 2.0 is out of hand- when the style is that predictable. These are entertaining, at least. The only one I really like is the adobe one. The rest are pretty impertinent designs.

  3. yasin Says:

    They are pretty nice, and some are funny but I think Apple’s original logo is better. And Yahoo and Nike’s ones look some meaningless.

    My favorite is Camel!

    PS: Coca Cola needs a “beta” text too :)

  4. Ersin Acar Says:

    Enron’s logo is awsome great work ;)

  5. efecan Says:

    i think they’re better than originals :)

  6. BuÄŸra Says:

    Cool logos, thans, good work. They are much more better than originals.

  7. Roberta Seldon Says:

    The Adobe logo is my favorite. It gives the logo an updated, contemporary look. The CitiBank logo is nice also– might have been better if the same color scheme was used as in the original logo.

  8. gursu Says:

    great! I think logos will be more powerfull with 3.0 :)

  9. justsomebloke Says:

    Citrix have changed their logo (distinctive red button with “Access” written across it) and colour scheme (reds, oranges and blacks) to, well, a boring blue corporate logo/scheme just like thousands of others. Maybe not a famous logo, just one that isn’t as interesting as before.

  10. Anderson Guering Says:

    wait, is this official work ? how come i’ve never seen this adobe 2.0 logo ? can you post links of the actual use of all those logos ? The Nike’s looks like a complete no funny joke. Whats with those colors ?

  11. fauxpeanut Says:

    @Anderson Guering

    No this is just a concept, like a joke. Don’t worry.

  12. Bogdan Pop Says:

    web 2.0 what versions? First learn what web 2.0 is, then talk. The above ideas kick one another in flaws, kitsch and awful brand upgrade.

Leave a Reply