What should a logo for NeXT look like? (1986)
Paul Rand’s 1986 logo for Steve Jobs’ NeXT computer company prompts sharply divided views, from “timeless and iconic” to “primitive and ugly,” with many critiques focusing on its odd cube projection, color choices, and lowercase “e.” Commenters use NeXT as a lens to explore broader questions of what makes a good logo—memorability vs. aesthetics, the extent to which meaning is created by brand history rather than form, and how designers justify their work to clients. The thread also touches on NeXT’s influence on later systems like macOS and GNUstep, and compares the logo’s lasting cultural impact to other famous identities such as IBM, Sun, Pepsi, and political campaigns.
Overall perception of the NeXT logo
- Strongly polarizing: some call it iconic, confident, and timeless; others find it primitive, ugly, or amateurish compared with Sun, SGI, or Nintendo 64/GameCube logos.
- Multiple comments say the cube’s projection “looks wrong” — neither proper perspective nor true orthographic — which creates visual discomfort.
- Colors and thin letterforms are criticized as muddy and low-contrast, clashing with the machines’ sleek hardware; others praise the bold multicolor look as the kind of personality modern brands lack.
- The lowercase “e” is noted as intentional, to prevent “NEXT” being read as “EXIT”; some still find the “e” visually irritating.
- Several point out the logo is memorable but question whether memorability alone is enough if many people find it unattractive; others argue that memorability is the primary job of a logo.
- Some believe the design is locked to an ’80s–early-’90s aesthetic and would have required major evolution, unlike Apple’s more adaptable mark.
Design process, theory, and persuasion
- The Rand presentation and booklet are admired as a masterclass in pitching: confidence, narrative, and process used to justify a single strong proposal.
- Comparisons are drawn to famous logo pitches (AT&T by Saul Bass, Pepsi’s over-the-top rationale), with skepticism that designers can fully explain how they truly arrived at a design.
- Several stress that logos are “empty vessels” filled by people’s experiences; early reactions without context are seen as shallow but common.
- There is debate over whether good design should “just look right” without any backstory (e.g., Nike, FedEx), versus needing conceptual explanations.
NeXTstep legacy and tooling
- Thread branches into nostalgia for NeXT hardware, OS, and UI, with claims that using NeXT once felt more “futuristic” than today’s tech.
- GNUstep, Étoilé, and Haiku are discussed as heirs or alternatives to the NeXTstep/Cocoa model; challenges include small ecosystems, compatibility gaps, and community traction.
- Some still run NeXT-inspired environments (e.g., WindowMaker-based Linux distros) and enjoy the aesthetic.
Branding costs and reuse
- Rebranding is portrayed as enormously expensive (examples: AT&T, Verizon), which explains corporate reluctance to change bad logos.
- A notable anecdote describes a political campaign reusing the NeXT cube concept as a ballot box, seen as both “hack work” and disturbingly effective.