<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for </title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for </description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Looks like the Skype logo.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bronson-Lee Drapesa]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:17PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[that and a tinge of Virgin.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Najakwa]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:25PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I concur, it looks like some of the graphics on Virgin pay as you go phones.<br><br>Keep plugging away though, anything you produce will look better than the current Verizon logo.  <br><br>I can't help but think that the gradient logo has to be sorta hard/expensive to produce on the phones.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[inteller]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:41PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[That and a tiny bit of hipster.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[nerdtalker]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 6:41PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Kind of makes you want to throw up a little.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[MioTheGreat]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:18PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[the real one yeah.  this one is totally more awesomer.<br><br>then again, anything would probably be better than that stupid check mark.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[a ham sandwich]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:31PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[The original is worse... the "new" one would be an improvement, but the font is still hideous.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[gyung]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:42PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[@gyung<br><br>point well taken.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[a ham sandwich]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 5:02PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Ehh... looks too 70's, it would make me feel like my phone is an old piece of junk.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:18PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[well, considering the technology it uses....it is.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[inteller]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:42PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[the problem is the word. not how it's drawn. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[you]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:18PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Naaa I heard they announced today that Verizon will now be called TACOMAN...there's your karma.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:59PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Shouldn't they just rename it VODAFONE?<br>after all, Vodafone is a major shareholder of Verizon and a much stronger brand name and it is the world's largest cell phone carrier.<br><br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sam]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 4:17PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Vodafone is a minority shareholder and owns none of Verizon Communications, the parent company which owns a majority.<br><br>If they were to rebrand anything Vodafone, they would have to break the brand link between the wireline operations (FiOS, ancient telephone lines, the former MCI) and the wireless arms, since Vodafone has no relations with the former company. In the United States, it's more valuable to have a single brand for wireless and wireline then to have a single brand with an international cell phone network that is incompatible anyway. If they branded the whole wireless operation "Vodafone", then people might start to wonder why no "Vodafone US" CDMA phones worked on "Vodafone anywhere-else-on-earth"...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Epsilon-Not]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 4:21PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I've always thought that Verizon sounded like a future corporation in a sci-fi movie, like Cyberdyne]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Snake Robot Podium]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 3rd 2009 11:04AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Ya know, I think I know where they're going on this one.<br><br>Um... nope, no, I don't.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[BeyondtheTech]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:19PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[the current verizon logo isnt that great but what these guys think should be the new logo looks even worse.  their version is horrible.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[sophisticated]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:26PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I'm not a big fan of the checkmark logo, but I'll take it over that strange cloud thing any day.<br><br>They should just bring back the Bell System logo- it's such a classic logo that it's a real shame that nobody uses it...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Epsilon-Not]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:22PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[The 1969 Bell System logo as well as the 1984 AT&T logo (both by Saul Bass) were indeed vastly superior to any of these. But compared to the hideous 3D blasphemy of today's at&t (entirely deserving its lowercase lettering) I'll take the current Verizon logo any day. It's quite effective and no one should ever be ridiculed for the use of Helvetica.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Andie]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 4:41PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I agree they could use a new look, but the cloud thing..... yea no.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[xJuice]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:22PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Verizon needs to first re-invent itself, then maybe a new logo would be appplicable.<br>Data caps indeed. I am glad I am with Alltel.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[granny down east]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:23PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[You DO realize that Verizon OWNS Alltel? ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:26PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Pwnd..literally. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[shravan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:31PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[@Matt: Could be in one of the divested markets, though.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Epsilon-Not]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:42PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Verizon bought Alltell. :) Bend over, grab your ankles, and get ready to have your phone lobotomised. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[ldrn]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:46PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Alltel's customers were not burdened with Verizon's data limits.<br>My $60/mo goes for unlimited, uncapped data on the HTC Touch. Another $25 gets me unlimited tethering any month I want it, for the dumbphone.<br>Not the world's best plan, but it works for us.<br>Yes, I know Alltel is owned by Verizon. Right now, I'm happy. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[granny down east]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:58PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[@Idrb, I believe the word you were looking for is sodomized...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Maverick]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 4:03PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[@ldrn: It would be interesting to see your frontal lobe destroyed by entering in through the anus for the procedure, but it seems a bit unnecessary. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 4:09PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I had an Alltel phone back in the day and switched to Verizon which, imo, was miles better as far as coverage and reliability. I'd never go back to Alltel, though I've never had a data plan on a phone until I got my iPhone so maybe Alltel does that better but I wouldn't know.<br><br>Those commercials are hideous though. I mean really, they are worse than the Apple vs. PC commercials; they use the same insanely dumb advertising strategy of "We're just cooler than the other guy", accept Apple's are actually a little funny sometimes and Alltel's make me want to vomit.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[MarnBeast]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 3rd 2009 4:39AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I like the current one a lot more than this one.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[bartoron]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:23PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[that logo isnt much better.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:25PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Why is this "Featured"?<br><br>It looks like someone had a really bad idea and thought it was great so they posted it Featured on the front page.  This looks terrible.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rocky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:27PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I mean, did you even read the post? You should.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua Topolsky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:45PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I mean, do you have surveys that say people don't like the current logo?  All that's in your article is you saying you don't like and and you saying YOU think it should be changed.  That's not journalism, that's blogging.  It's not an article.  It's a blog post.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rocky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 5:04PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Isn't this a blog?  That would make sense for it to be a blog post.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[mattbates]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 6:33PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[It would make sense for it to be a blog post.  You're absolutely right.  It doesn't, however, make sense for it to have the featured tag and it doesn't make sense to refer to it as an "article" when accusing me of not reading it.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rocky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 7:01PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I agree... Verizon is the market leader.  The logo follows all the design rules (the emotion matrix, color theory, etc.) and is very recognizable.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.<br><br>On a side note:  the article mentions the Verizon buyout of Alltel which reminds me... why does Alltel keep making fun of its parent company in their television ads?  Verizon literally owns them yet Alltel's commercials portray the Verizon guy as a loser.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[advs89]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 11:01PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[@Rocky -- so you're mad because it has a "featured" tag? How odd.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua Topolsky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 3rd 2009 9:02AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[That's what I said isn't it?  The very first thing, actually.  The very first line.  And you accused me of not reading.  Tsk.  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rocky]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 3rd 2009 11:51AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[For realsies?  There is a whole field of design theory known as Typography.  It was not referenced for this design.  May as well just use papyrus.ttf.<br><br>Barf.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[JaceFace]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:29PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[...wait... so you're saying that using a a piece of crap true type you downloaded free from dafont doesn't count as typography?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Rowland]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:45PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I Like it, It looks nice.<br>Gives me the feeling "Halloween up High" Dunno why...]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Draik]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:32PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[I'm not sure what looks more hideous about that logo; the white on red, the curly V, the 80s hacker font used for the rest of the letters, or the elongated cloud.  This logo looks like it was done by a first-year art student trying to rip off the Skype logo with a cracked copy of CorelDRAW.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[aether]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:29PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[It was all done using the same typeface, dude. It's Estilo, made by the renowned type designer Dino dos Santos. I agree that in this case, it looks bad, but it's really a nice typeface when used in the right situation (as long as it doesn't see overuse, as is likely to happen soon).]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Ferdinand]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 9:52PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[<br>Someone should open a Verizon logo design contest on <a href="http://99designs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://99designs.com/</a>.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[fkmobile]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:31PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Its horrible no doubt. But the clue is obvious. Verizon seriously needs rebranding. at&t and T-mob both have a nice look to their branding, Engadget just echoed my sentiments about their crappy branding. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[shravan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:33PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[How about they keep the current logo, but unlock their phones.. eh?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[tyler]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:33PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[What's the point of unlocking their phones?  So you can pay full retail and take it to Sprint?  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[FOREX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:38PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[Or so you can do whatever you want to the phone?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[tyler]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 5:05PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/verizon-rebranding-an-april-fools-prank-that-should-be-real/</guid><description><![CDATA[LOOK WHO'S TALKING! Engadget, your logo sucks just as much as verizon. fact of the matter is they're both great logos cause the company is great so no one questions anthing. Yeah it'd be cool verizon changed theirs but they dont need to, they're so popular and powerfull, theres no need and + + that cloud crap wouldnt work, they need something sleek.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[K00m5]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2009 3:33PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
