I am utterly, absolutely, blown away by the new AT&T logo:

http://www.att.com/

The new design modernizes Saul Bass's legendary “Death Star” symbol and takes it into a sweeping three dimensional look. The wordmark, while retaining equities from the 1984 “Death Star” and the earlier Bell System design (which if I recall correctly Bass also penned), has been modernized and is as exciting as the new symbol it accompanies. I cannot help but feel the attached positioning tagline “Your world. Delivered” is destined to be regarded as a classic, and lacks the pretentious self-indulgence of the current AT&T slogan, “The World's Networking Company.” It is also lightyears ahead of AT&T's worst slogan, the Orwellian “The System Is The Solution” slogan the firm used in its ill-fated corporate marketing push to avoid being broken up in the early 1980s.

In short, I am very impressed.

am relieved that this rebrand turned out so well, as I was dreading the new AT&T turning out to be the next “New Sprint.” Fortunately, that didn't happen, and I'm sure Gary Forsee is kicking himself as we speak for not going with a more ambitious design solution. For that matter, I'm sure Lippincott Mercer is kicking its collective self for not pushing Sprint harder on the design front.

-William Golden Wilkins
www.integral-identity.com

Wow! This logo is definitely as strong as the previous one, but years ahead and ready for the future. Besides the fact I am really, really impressed, I cannot hold myself from pointing out one weak issue as well ;).. The company is AT&T and consistently calls itself AT&T, even in the latest press release about the new logo. However, in the logo, the company calls itself at&t instead of AT&T. I always try to avoid this inconsistency, as the first logo of MediaBattery said mediabattery and I learned what this can lead to ;))

First I remember is the german Red Dot Award Logo(Communication and Product Design Award). With a nice rendering and better illusion of a 3D-Sphere.

Look at:
Red Dot Award (http://www.red-dot.de)

great comment Robert… :/
your inane comparison on at&t and red-dots logo's is ace. They're completely different and companies going after different market segments.

at&t: good work…. if a little safe. But then again, why would a multi billion dollar company need to REALLY change anything?

Anthony: You right. Different market segments. I dont compare the logos themself. Ofcause thats no Copy! Thats clear. I just remember this logo.
But if we want to compare then the quality and I think AT&T could have been spent better that money.

I agree with the first Comment. I'm utterly blown away. But not in the positive sense. This work gives a bit of disregard to most other mediums outside of digital. Yes, I know everything is going digital, but a well thought out ID should consider every medium, including print. Even scary old black and white (oh no!). And to insult Saul Bass by calling it an improvment. There's more in this world than the internet ya know. All this logo needs now are some bevels and drop shadows and we'll have a perfect piece of poop. I'd say more, but my boss is looking over my shoulder.

Y'all are on crack. They've taken Saul Bass's timeless mark and shat on it with a trendy extruded marble treatment. This looks like they hired logoworks.com. Seriously.

The world IS going digital, and advances in printing technology mean that concerns over the viability of three dimensional logos such as this can be blissfully relegated to the dustbin of history. While undeniably the new design is not as flexible as the design it replaced, it no longer needs to be. With skillful design of the brand applications, this will be a viable and compelling identity for many years to come. Also, the greyscale version of it does not look that bad at all.

I for one cannot help but feel a lot of the criticism this logo has attracted is due to the “sour grapes” mentality. This design is so far ahead of the rest of the branding work done in 2005, that most designers either (a) wish they had won that job themselves, or (b) feel as though their creativity has been surpassed (which is quite actually the case, in my opinion). I personally intend to benchmark all of my design work for 2006 against this logo.

-WGW

Bill, all you've done is fawn over this logo like they were paying you to. Were they?

The new AT&T logo is a disappointment. It reflects the age of the management team and their inability to think outside the box. The lack of creativity and the cheap knockoff of other brands is a disgrace to this once great company.

Awful. Beyond awful. A first-year design students attempt to draw the old one from memory.
Saul Bass's original logo was brilliant. Superbly designed, achieving a 3D look and the bold typography was a great match.
Then again, he is a great designer. This new logo has plenty of problems, the first being it is horribly drawn. The shading for dimension is weak. The inside darker blue does not have enough contrast. I hate it. I also don't believe in needless updating of icons that have spent years achieving an instant recognizability. UPS was also messed up by a “top” design studio.
The old AT&T logo wasn't broken. They should not have touched it.

I myself long for the days of the old “bell” logo. I liked that one.

And the lowercase lettering? Push-lease! I'm so oldschool I pay for my landline by mail, WITH A CHECK. When I do so now, it is made out to AT&T, in CAPITALS, the way it should be!