No, it's text. A logo doesn't need an article to state what it emphasises.
'Logo' ≠ 'emblem', don't conflate the two. 'Just text' can be a logo just as Louis Vuitton's is 'just text'. And Louis Vuitton follows a long history of trademarked luxury fashion being closer to an artist's
signature than a visual signifier. Most wouldn't be able to put that together on their own at a cognitive level, but the logo evokes that history and prestige without having to obviously convey to the average onlooker that it's expensive and for people with deep pockets and fragile egos.
The reason I told you to
read the article and comments suggesting other inspirations is because
you didn't put a lot of thought into attempting to interpret the logo, therefore reading up on someone else's ideas for it would help stimulate that thought. Rather, you think to needlessly and exaggeratedly dog on a new logo on the basis of a reasoning whose knees quake under a five pound weight.
I also think the new logo is bad, but I think so on a design level. The significant concepts behind the logo, i.e. the silicon-inspired coloration and reference to SMDs, is just fine and works for their brand. It's the final product I have an issue with. You hate it because they changed it at all, as if you would happen upon the old Micron logo in the wild and smile fondly. You didn't. Give the new a fair shake before you make calls to dump it in the river.
