Microsoft store logo revealed

A post by Long Zheng from istartedsomething shows that the logo for the Microsoft store has been revealed, and was filed last week by Microsoft at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The logo, shown below, bears a strong resemblance to the Windows logo, and according to Zheng's post, it's "registered to cover a multitude of goods and services including retail store services and online retail services featuring computers, computer hardware, software, computer games, computer peripherals, portable music players and accessories, personal digital assistants, cell phones and accessories, video game consoles and accessories, webcams, books, clothing, back packs, messenger bags, computer bags and novelty items".

We've previously reported that Microsoft plans to open up their own retail stores right next to Apple's stores. Microsoft has announced that it's first locations would be in California and Arizona.

Back in late July, documents were leaked revealing possible Microsoft store layout plans. However, the company said that these plans were early prototypes and were not finalized.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mac OS X 10.5.8 released

Next Story

Obama Administration funds effort to build better batteries

123 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Nobody said this was going to be the final logo...

Even if it is most people aren't going to say "Oh that logo looks like crap, better not go in that store!"

It's not too late. Let us begin the "Design the Windows Store Logo" contest here on NEOWIN and the winner will be submitted alongside with a petition of thousands of signatures to use the new logo!

Ladies and Gentlefolk... Start your shopping!!! (er drawing)

It's amazing how painfully unaware some of the posters here are behaving. Even though it's been brought up more than once that this design is NOT unique to the Windows flag, the vast majority of posters seem to think this is somehow limiting the store to Windows products.

I'm sorry, but this notion shows a complete lack of product awareness. It's a perfect square, a shape the Windows flag has never been in, making it (as one person said) more of a hybrid of Windows and Office logos.

It contains the colors of every division of MS product. There's also the somehow-forgotten reality that these other products all run on a Windows platform in the first place. Isn't Xbox running on a version of Windows?

Don't Media Center remotes have a Windows logo on them?

Windows Mobile...if that needs to be explained, there's just no hope for you.

Keyboards! They've had a logo key since the 90s!

God, these comments areas are starting to feel like Youtube.

So it's a Windows store, because that is representative of the Windows logo - not the Microsoft one in my eyes.

I actually like it.
It stands out. It's cool. Everyone I've shown this logo too instantly asked if it had to do with Windows, and they're not even tech freaks like us.

Wow, MS fanboys are getting a lot closer to becoming like Apple fanboys... they're drooling over logos, store layouts, code names, leaked screenshots... what's next?

HalcyonX12 said,
Wow, MS fanboys are getting a lot closer to becoming like Apple fanboys... they're drooling over logos, store layouts, code names, leaked screenshots... what's next?

I suggest that it's only because there's stuff to be excited about. Apple have been all about the hype for years, but MS haven't been so much until more recent times.

And please don't go down the route implying that anyone who likes something MS/Apple does must be a fanboy. It's just annoying.

If you take a look at the Windows logo and Office logo (Microsoft's bread and butter) you can see this as being a sort of hybrid of the two. There is more to the Microsoft Store than Windows so they "ironed" out the flag. Office contributes the "boxes" loosely representing the many components of the Office Suite. They both share the same colors.

The result is a logo that is quickly recognizable (colors) as SOMETHING Microsoft related.

To me, it portrays an ecosystem of different, yet interacting components fitting together in harmonious continuity. (the even-stepped tonal variation within each square)

Hahaha! How's that for pretentious over-analysis!

Truth-be-told, a logo will represent different things to different people. If Microsoft wants to step into the consumer's eye in a big way, they will want to "neutral-ize" their image to shepherd anything they want to shove in our faces.

I feel this logo does that.

I really don't get this logo. Yes it has the Windows colours but other than that it doesn't mean anything. It looks like a flag - the Windows flag no doubt but I thought these new stores were Microsoft stores not Windows stores so why not just the Microsoft logo that EVERYBODY knows. The MS logo in chrome or silver mounted on a black panel will look simple and is instantly recognizable.

Kirkburn said,
That's fairly boring though, and doesn't mark it out as a "store".

Apple uses the standard Apple logo for their stores. Apparently most Mac, iPod and iPhone users seem to comprehend it just fine that they're walking into a retail store and don't need a special logo for them to understand. :P

.Neo said,
Apple uses the standard Apple logo for their stores. Apparently most Mac, iPod and iPhone users seem to comprehend it just fine that they're walking into a retail store and don't need a special logo for them to understand. :P

Well, the Apple logo is an image, not a word. The logo can stand for a "store" because people are less familiar with Apple, and it doesn't use words.

Putting up a big sign saying "Microsoft" doesn't let you interpret it as "Microsoft Store", because it is literally "Microsoft".

The only reason this logo irks me is because the damn lines don't match up perfectly! That in itself wouldn't be a problem if it was intentional, but I'm guessing that's not the case.

Other than that, it's consistent with the general Microsoft branding so it's suitable for its purpose. I'm not too crash hot about the way it seems to emphasise primary colours though. That's what probably makes it look kiddy-ish, but then again that might have been what they were going for because the logo doesn't exactly scream 'corporate'.

I like the logo. Simple and effective.

tele-fragd said,
The only reason this logo irks me is because the damn lines don't match up perfectly! That in itself wouldn't be a problem if it was intentional, but I'm guessing that's not the case.

Yes they do. It's just an optical illusion.

Its very good and simple. I like it.

Some people were expecting something more flashy or "complex" but most of the times, the best logos are the most simple.

Wow, a year and this idea still hasn't died the painful death it deserves.

It's an operating system, not an overrated movie.

As a graphic designer, my job is to create and analyze things like this... and I really enjoy it.

Its much simpler than the standard gradient soaked logos of the post web 2.0 boom. The true test of a well designed logo, is when it works as a very small mark on, for example, a letterhead as well as in large scale. I wish it was the basic four colors instead of the stepped tints. Still nice, very unexpected from microsoft...

The true test of a logo is if it can be recognized when made into a monochromatic profile.

The (XP) windows flag can.
The Office logo can
The Vista/7 Orb can
The Xbox Orb can
The IE logo can

... this... just looks like 4 squares.

It would be exponentially harder than normal to print this logo on T-Shirts, Hats, pens and other promotional material, and have it still be recognizable at a glance.

I guarantee there will be no staff uniforms with this logo on them in store.

Think about it though. EVERY major company or brand has a logo that stands on it's own when made monochromatic.

Apple (oops!)
Dell
HP
Sony
Google
Nintendo
LG
... and so on.

If the silhouette or profile of the logo isn't defining of a product, then it isn't a good logo, and that is why this fails.

cyberdrone2000 said,
I guarantee there will be no staff uniforms with this logo on them in store.

Sources being??? Obviously every company opening a retail outlet uses it's chosen logo everywhere except on staff uniforms? Oh no wait a minute.......

cyberdrone2000 said,
The true test of a logo is if it can be recognized when made into a monochromatic profile.

The (XP) windows flag can.
The Office logo can
The Vista/7 Orb can
The Xbox Orb can
The IE logo can

... this... just looks like 4 squares.

It would be exponentially harder than normal to print this logo on T-Shirts, Hats, pens and other promotional material, and have it still be recognizable at a glance.

I guarantee there will be no staff uniforms with this logo on them in store.

Think about it though. EVERY major company or brand has a logo that stands on it's own when made monochromatic.

Apple (oops!)
Dell
HP
Sony
Google
Nintendo
LG
... and so on.

If the silhouette or profile of the logo isn't defining of a product, then it isn't a good logo, and that is why this fails.

I am well aware of the monochromatic/black rule of thumb, however there I see nothing wrong with simply having 4 black squares (with no color step obviously). The most timeless logos are ones with good type selection, no gimmicks, easy to read, and usually little to no detail.

I think the stepped coloring was a mistake, however its still a step in the right direction. I'd take this over the vista like gel button logo. That glossy look makes me want to punch a baby.

gearkraft said,
I am well aware of the monochromatic/black rule of thumb, however there I see nothing wrong with simply having 4 black squares (with no color step obviously). The most timeless logos are ones with good type selection, no gimmicks, easy to read, and usually little to no detail.

I think the stepped coloring was a mistake, however its still a step in the right direction. I'd take this over the vista like gel button logo. That glossy look makes me want to punch a baby.

Agreed.

My problem with 4 black squares is that they aren't unique enough to be instantly recognizable as the "microsoft store logo". Four squares in that configuration appears too often in other works, and the environment, to become solely associated with one particular brand in the mind of the consumer.

I would have varied the size of the squares (like the office logo), or something else of that nature. This would have retained the simple elegance of the logo, while making it unique enough for customers to associate instantly with the "microsoft store".

cyberdrone2000 said,
Agreed.

My problem with 4 black squares is that they aren't unique enough to be instantly recognizable as the "microsoft store logo". Four squares in that configuration appears too often in other works, and the environment, to become solely associated with one particular brand in the mind of the consumer.

I would have varied the size of the squares (like the office logo), or something else of that nature. This would have retained the simple elegance of the logo, while making it unique enough for customers to associate instantly with the "microsoft store".


guys, your forgetting that this logo will only be used for the stores... formal printed letters will be using the Microsoft logo , and brochures, leaflets, etc for the store would almost certainly be in colour... i think that this logo is less a logo in the traditional branding sense, and more of a signpost for the shop

How... square. Definitely gets the job done, though. I'm glad they didn't give it anything to do with Windows 7, as I thought they might. That'd be too short-term. Haven't heard of any coming to Canada yet...

Question: Does anyone have any comparative figures for the different pieces of hardware that both Apple and Microsoft sell?

Something I've always wondered - apple have enough core products that it makes it worthwhile having their own store. Microsoft has two MASSIVE software products (Windows + Office)but only a couple of major hardware products, the rest are relatively small and insignificant (mice, keyboards, etc.). But of that hardware, how much of it do they actually sell? I mean, they've got their fingers in a LOT of pies, that's for sure, but do they sell as many as Apple?

Presumably the store will be filled with hardware from all sorts of manufactures, but I'm just curious about Microsoft's own offerings.

out of hardware i can think of :
Xbox 360
Zune HD
webcam
mice
keyboard
surface

software wise ,

Windows client and server
office

games (Halo series , Gear of war series , age of empires )

live subscription code

.....many more cant bother to think about them lool

Not to mention the plethora of XBox accessories:

battery packs
controllers
charge cables
A/V cables
faceplaces
messenger pads
headsets
wireless headsets
charge docks
MS point cards

not to mention all the rumours and speculation that MS are gong to develop a homegrown OEM machine, fresh with the Windows logo and ugly other OEM in place. Naturally, they will still sell other OEM equipment, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer etc in store, they don't wat to get fined again!

After responding to a retard a few posts up about the English language and this one here about hardware with no retards or trolls (yet) it occurs I havent decided whether I like it or not.

It is without a doubt very recognisable as Windows/Microsoft for that there is no doubt, and going on past logo's allt he way upto the logo used in Office 2007 and the 2010 Tech preview I think IMO I can see the theory behind it being evolutionary. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

Yeah - it's recognizable and stands out so I'm liking it. Sometimes being modern,doesn't always mean it's better. There are quite a number of logos that haven't changed from the 80s/90s.

Why, you're right! The four colors that were present in every Windows logo were also present in that particular version of Windows!

Astonishing! Dan Brown would be inspired!

Biotoxic_hazard_835 said,
"So easy a caveman can do it" comes to mind. Must be one of the ugliest logos I have seen in years.

"Ugly" is a strange term to use. What's ugly about it?

So what that it's simple? Many of the best logos are simple.

<sarc>The trademark sign really adds to the composition...... though, perhaps that should be bigger......</sarc>

You gotta be f**king kidding me.

M_Lyons10 said,
Hm... Very simple. I like it. I wish they were opening one near me though... Hopefully soon?

Surprise everyone, lyonsie likes it. I am shocked, shocked to the very core of my being. Please tell us, when was the last thing of Microsoft that you disliked, or even just didn't completely love in everyway? No doubt you were an ardent supported of clipsy, Microsoft Bob, Vista, Windows ME, and MS-Dos 4.1.

Just kidding mate, you rock. And I will say that the logo fits in with the office 2007 branding.

Maybe they are taking a page out Apple's book this time too. Let's not forget that MS hired the same guy who helped Apple open its first stores a few years ago.

ricknl said,
Could you please repeat that in English?

Why certainly dear sir, he was merely posturing on the simple fact that the firm in question should have retained the first design they produced, and not this monstrosity, which is sure to scare children and the women folk.

Good day to you sir!

cakesy said,
Why certainly dear sir, he was merely posturing on the simple fact that the firm in question should have retained the first design they produced, and not this monstrosity, which is sure to scare children and the women folk.

Good day to you sir!

Your verbosity is quaint, if woefully inadequate.

The gentlemen above was summarizing his musings of the portrayed emblem, and discerned that the hallmark presented incipiently gave a greater impression of an organization whose commission bore superlative consummation.

Now I implore you to occupy the remaining hours of the day attending to whichever tasks that you find the most enjoyable.

cyberdrone2000 said,


Your verbosity is quaint, if woefully inadequate.

The gentlemen above was summarizing his musings of the portrayed emblem, and discerned that the hallmark presented incipiently gave a greater impression of an organization whose commission bore superlative consummation.

Now I implore you to occupy the remaining hours of the day attending to whichever tasks that you find the most enjoyable.


freaks

XerXis said,


freaks :p



They are freaks for speaking English, I'm pretty sure that reading this forum and those comments, ensures you can at least understand BASIC ENGLISH??? Just because you don't have the cranial capacity to understand what either of the esteemed gentleman above have said, does not make them freaks. (snipped)

cerealfreak said,



They are freaks for speaking English, I'm pretty sure that reading this forum and those comments, ensures you can at least understand BASIC ENGLISH??? Just because you don't have the cranial capacity to understand what either of the esteemed gentleman above have said, does not make them freaks. (snipped)


^ true freak

cyberdrone2000 said,
Your verbosity is quaint, if woefully inadequate.

The gentleman above was summarizing his musings of the portrayed emblem, and discerned that the hallmark presented incipiently gave a greater impression of an organization whose commission bore superlative consummation.

Now I implore you to occupy the remaining hours of the day attending to whichever tasks that you find the most enjoyable.


I cannot stress enough the importance of grammar in situations like these. There is the possibility that you may have erroneously inserted an 'E' in the place of an 'A', thereby spelling the plural form 'Gentlemen', despite referring to only one person and the usage of the noun 'his' later on in your sentence, in any case I have taken the liberty to correct your mistake for you.

Have a pleasant day , sir!

Agreed. I like how it is simple and right away you know it is Microsoft and Windows.
I for one hope they open next to an Apple store and have Windows 7 or Vista computers setup on computers that don't have any OEM junk on them.

People will truly realize just how much faster Windows is than Mac.

I am running my 2.2GHZ 6GB RAM Macbook /w Windows 7 x64 RC1

dtomilson said,
I am running my 2.2GHZ 6GB RAM Macbook /w Windows 7 x64 RC1

Sorry to sound like a fanboy but, doesn't the fact that you're running Windows on your Mac negate your statement?

Tanshin said,
Sorry to sound like a fanboy but, doesn't the fact that you're running Windows on your Mac negate your statement?

You have to use HP computers to say Windows 7 is good? Bear in mind Microsoft does not make hardware.

Tanshin said,
Sorry to sound like a fanboy but, doesn't the fact that you're running Windows on your Mac negate your statement?

What I was stating is that a lot of the bloat OEMs put on their computers either causes the computers to run more slowly and or makes them more unstable. If you perform a clean install with just the drivers and the OS you definitely see just how fast the computer really is.

I couldn't use Leopard as my main OS due to how slow it really is. I am not trying to stir-up anything either. This is from my experience.

dtomilson said,
What I was stating is that a lot of the bloat OEMs put on their computers either causes the computers to run more slowly and or makes them more unstable. If you perform a clean install with just the drivers and the OS you definitely see just how fast the computer really is.

I couldn't use Leopard as my main OS due to how slow it really is. I am not trying to stir-up anything either. This is from my experience.

I understand that. I use Leopard and Win 7 myself, however I must say my Mac is faster (based on my experience), which only has a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo processor with 2 GB of RAM. I built my PC with a 2.4 GHz Athlon X2 and 6 GB of ram and it is far slower.

As for doing a clean install, I love it on both Leopard and Windows. They both boot incredibly fast, however as with any operating system, as soon as software comes in, it gets slow.

Tanshin said,
I understand that. I use Leopard and Win 7 myself, however I must say my Mac is faster (based on my experience), which only has a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo processor with 2 GB of RAM. I built my PC with a 2.4 GHz Athlon X2 and 6 GB of ram and it is far slower.

Of course the Mac is faster the processor in it is way better. Just because it is a higher GHz doesn't mean squat. The Core 2 duo kicks the ass of the X2. RAM may help a bit but not a noticeable amount.

dtomilson said,
What I was stating is that a lot of the bloat OEMs put on their computers either causes the computers to run more slowly and or makes them more unstable. If you perform a clean install with just the drivers and the OS you definitely see just how fast the computer really is.

I couldn't use Leopard as my main OS due to how slow it really is. I am not trying to stir-up anything either. This is from my experience.


Leopard was slower, than Windows??? Wow.
I installed Leopard on my PC (used the iAtkos installer, don't tell anybody!) and it was really fast! Faster than any Windows anyway. Maybe your Mac has hardware defects?

Tanshin said,

I understand that. I use Leopard and Win 7 myself, however I must say my Mac is faster (based on my experience), which only has a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo processor with 2 GB of RAM. I built my PC with a 2.4 GHz Athlon X2 and 6 GB of ram and it is far slower.

As for doing a clean install, I love it on both Leopard and Windows. They both boot incredibly fast, however as with any operating system, as soon as software comes in, it gets slow.

Bad comparison with the processors

Don't like it either.

To be honest, it looks like something that a seven or younger year old could have made.

I can see how this was probably made. They made the color boxes, made a smaller white one with less opacity, made another smaller one with the same opacity, deleted whatever wasn't in the color, and BOOM! you have a horrible logo.

Tanshin said,
Don't like it either.

To be honest, it looks like something that a seven or younger year old could have made.

I can see how this was probably made. They made the color boxes, made a smaller white one with less opacity, made another smaller one with the same opacity, deleted whatever wasn't in the color, and BOOM! you have a horrible logo.


Apple (Store) logos arent exactly the most innovative design in the world either, its just an Apple with a bite out of it.

kevin8441 said,
dont like it

I don't understand why they didn't just use their typical logo?

The point with it has to be to build brand recognazibility. Apple doesn't deviate from their apple logo from time to time, and for a good reason. *shrug*

This looks odd and unnecessary to me. I had definitely expected a stylish and pretty version of the Windows flag.

Richard Hammond said,
Apple (Store) logos arent exactly the most innovative design in the world either, its just an Apple with a bite out of it.

Maybe not, but it's still the Apple logo which is well recognized. This... erm... thing means nothing to most people. Sure, it has some vague resemblance of the Windows flag that has been used over the years, but how many people outside of the tech community will actually make that association? This logo could have been used for some king of gay pride store. *shudder*

kevin8441 said,
dont like it

they'll have to do better than that to make an impression over the apple logo. Todays society is very VERY materialistic!

d3bruts1d said,
This logo could have been used for some king of gay pride store. *shudder*

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

d3bruts1d said,
Sure, it has some vague resemblance of the Windows flag that has been used over the years, but how many people outside of the tech community will actually make that association? This logo could have been used for some king of gay pride store. *shudder*

Just "some vague resemblance"?

XP's logo - http://rarepattern.com/files/category_pict...indows-logo.jpg ... is barely different.

Going back further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_3.1_start.png

Unfortunately, the example screenshot isn't very high quality - I'm sure it looks better in person, when properly branded.

In any case, your comment about gay pride is just stupid. This is the rainbow flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag

Chasethebase said,
Am I the only person who likes it? :(

No, you are not. I like it, too.
It is simple (normal for a logo); it resembles the original MS logo, too.
It is a little bit "more sophisticated" by adding color variations. "A little bit" is enough, nobody expects them to make a 3D kinda thing for a logo. Neither are they establishing some radically new institution, so why make a terribly different logo? Yet it IS different enough to stand for something new.
So, in my opinion, it is OK.
And don't forget, the Redmond monster is spending a lot of money to keep going. So their resources are somewhat limited ;-).

Kirkburn said,
Just "some vague resemblance"?

XP's logo - http://rarepattern.com/files/category_pict...indows-logo.jpg ... is barely different.

Going back further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_3.1_start.png

Unfortunately, the example screenshot isn't very high quality - I'm sure it looks better in person, when properly branded.

In any case, your comment about gay pride is just stupid. This is the rainbow flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag


No no, it really is just some vague resemblence.

Just like here: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/microsoft-office.jpg

Which also happens to be squares.

And also happens to have the gradient.

But no, continue. Really. You know so much.

Tanshin said,
I can see how this was probably made. They made the color boxes, made a smaller white one with less opacity, made another smaller one with the same opacity, deleted whatever wasn't in the color, and BOOM! you have a horrible logo.


Actually the design is a fairly obvious evocation of minimalistic print making.

The red and green squares are over laid with yellow, which is then lifted to increase the transparency of the YELLOW OVERLAY and not the red or green. It is then treated to a second yellow overlay.

The blue and yellow squares are treated with a white overlay.

Houses are really simple if you call them cubes right?