I don’t get the MICR feeling from A at all, and it looks too web 2.0. You could make it work by using MICR type and losing the lighting gimmick—which makes little sense when working with a concept rooted in two-dimensions—but the generation you want does not use checks often enough—if ever—to get it.

B is too abstract, and the text treatment is too complicated and distracting to work as a logo.

C could work, but the mark needs tweaking. Dropping the rightmost block will make the wall concept more obvious, and the perspective needs to be toned down, right now it appears to be curving the mark.

I also think that you should not be breaking up “Next Generation” typographically. It makes little sense from a grammatic perspective, and visually it looks overwrought.

Thank you James. All makes perfect sense. I wonder now, about Concept C, whether the perspective really adds or should it be removed altogether?

Be careful with those checkers/squares. It looks a little Ralston/Purina or some cereal company.

I’m not wild for the checkerboard. It reminds me of the Purina logo, not building blocks. I preferred the lower version of A. The rectangles looked like computer keys to me rather than MICR characters (especially with the * in one) Which works for that generation especially in the glowing Mac blue. If you do decide to stick with the checkerboard play more with the type, even try angeling the baseline to parallel the base of the squares. Right now the negative space wedge is uninspired. Good suggestion by James not to break next generation, that was really distracting on your original post.