[entee]

I think the primary objective of a logo is to be a recognizable symbol for an organization or concept. It's not entirely clear to me that to achieve that objective the logo must fully describe the entity or be some identifiable representation of what that entity does.

For example Apple's logo speaks very little to what it does, and to a greater or lesser extent so do many others including Uber (new and old), Xiaomi, Square and Palantir just to pick a few of the largest startup-style companies in the last few years. Of course the logos come to work as a brand and we identify them with those entities as we get to know the brands.

Under this criteria, isn't the objective of a logo to simply be recognizable? In that case, kind of in a self-fulfilling manner, doesn't even a critical article such as this one make it more successful?

Personally I like the logo, and I found it interesting to hear the logic behind it. Sure it's not to everyone's liking, but is that the point of a logo?

[PKop]

The Apple logo says nothing about what "Apple" does but... it looks like an apple.

Likewise, the letters H and P say nothing about Hewlett Packard's business. That wasn't the criticism though. It was that the letters were unrecognizable as an "h" and a "p".