this points to what I'm talking about here. I'm not just getting on to defend mike but design and brand in tech are moving so fast that it has such a specific set of considerations that most traditional brand designers are often not thinking about. there are actually people in the comments saying that smith and diction delivered too big of a brand that will be too hard to manage. the truth is, nearly every client I work with is coming to me because they hired a freelancer or agency who handed off a brand book that lacks a world with no range or library of visual expression. tech co's like calendly generally have pretty large and talented brand teams and are able to execute on whatever you throw at them. they don't hire you for a flimsy PDF that stops at the logo, colors, and type. s&d also get dinged here for saying that the symbol is just a cool C. in traditional brands, the symbol is yoked with the expectation of telling the full story. these days, creating a unique, scalable, identifiable symbol is the name of the game and the story is told with the balance of the brand. tech brands have a specific set of constraints around symbol application that aren't necessary true for brick and mortar or DTC brands. I digress as I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here, it just has to be frustrating for people designing for tech that the only site reviewing brands is coming at them from an angle that often fails to understand how these brands will ultimately be used (not really their fault, just the truth of the matter). of course the critique would be mid even if the brand isn't at all.