It's not great graphic design, but it's very Google and consistent, so I think it's a successful improvement.

I wouldn't say it's very Google, because, frankly, it looks like a amateur job to me. Simple can be polished. And this is not polished.

Their choice of Sans is really odd, there are easily two or three better matches for Catull, especially for the subset of 5 characters they are actually using. The height of new addition is also strange and it starts to visually dwarf the Google part.

From a graphic design standpoint, Google has always gone with that 'amateur' look.

I feel like the simple sans type makes the Google logo lose its charm and look like an entry at cheapassedlogocontests.com. Trying to pair clean and simple with a Photochopped logo seems kind of absurd. I really just don’t know where Google is going with its brand. Didn’t they hire H&FJ to do a new sans that only shows up in some all-text magazine ads?

I've never liked google's branding. It has basically always looked like an amateur made it.

Didn’t they hire H&FJ to do a new sans that only shows up in some all-text magazine ads?

From the comments of http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/in_brief_google_lock...

Jonathan Hoefler’s comment is:
Stumped the band, eh! This must be a first.
The font is a beta of General, a family of typefaces that Kevin Dresser is developing with us. The above samples are a little embryonic; keep an eye on Google, and on http://www.typography.com/blog, for more.

I wouldn’t say it’s very Google, because, frankly, it looks like a amateur job to me. Simple can be polished. And this is not polished.

It's easy and incorrect to label Google's visual identity as amateur. Their look is not about being polished or simple.

Is it me or does the sans seem to be floating on a higher baseline than the wordmark?

I think it's centered on the middle of the x-height.

I wonder. It might be sitting on the same baseline as the wordmark –
minus the shade. :-\

> Their look is not about being polished or simple.

It has always been about being simple, stemming from their focus on simplicity of the user experience. Though whether it is/was polished is a matter of opinion.

Whatever the alignment, it looks off. Perhaps they should have put the words on two lines :( I don't think the two fonts complement each other very well.

It has always been about being simple,

Google is massively complex and powerful. I think you're mistaking simplicity with function.

> I think you’re mistaking simplicity with function.

Heheh .. sorry, but I have no idea what this ^ means. Highly complex and functional things can be simple to use.

What do you like about this identity, Jackson?

> Google is massively complex and powerful. I think you're mistaking simplicity with function.

That is one great reason to maintain a "noobish", "simple" and "amateur" look. They say "don't be evil", so they marketing team is probably aiming for "don't look evil" :P

Great identity in my opinion.

Clean-up‽

Where?

I agree with gotnov: Just another little Mom and Pop search engine company. Not one of those big slick search engine corporations like MS Bing.