ITT: we complain about Jow Forumsraphic design

Wrong, 7 can't be better than any of the other icon sets because it doesn't differentiate itself from the other icons by form - a fundamental flaw when the goal is getting somewhere with the shortest glances possibles.

The rational and aesthetic order is
5>4>6>7

5 first because it looks decent and it easy to see what is what.
4 second because it makes it easy to recognise what is what. On the go, with e.g. motion movement, 4 will be easier to handle than 6 or 7.
6 third because it it is still somewhat easy to find out what represents what, however it becomes much harder to notice already.
7 function follows form: for the sake of unity everything looks the same. Only difference is the coloring and, in the real world, tiny details in the center.
If I wouldn't know it already, you could offer me any icon from set No. 7 and I'd recognise it as Play Store all the time. Not as Play Books, Play Games etc. because it's just too dull to communicate that.

Attached: 1546510670412.gif (250x261, 2M)

5.0 is the best but they are all shit, especially 7.0

> Caring about jewgle

Shit I was about to say that the icons get clearer and bigger as you progress, but then realised that android 4 was the oldest...

>thank you based google

Attached: 1541707841052.png (568x142, 26K)

6 was the way to go imo

The non-centered circle makes this

I like canonical's origami design.

Literally who cares what icons and shit look like?

Don't be so fucking autistic.

Sure, let's not care about Jow Forumsraphic design.

Attached: 46.jpg (787x330, 154K)

I honestly feel that each iteration is a leg up from the last. There is nothing wrong with the icons in that picture, especially not the last row.

Why does 4C have to be so contrarian?