CEREBRL  Wow, I have no clue what you just said. Are saying we should care, we shouldn't care or that we are bad for caring/not caring? I'm confused.  
(Version 5.1.42)

MARK EVERITT  A bit sensitive aren't we? Your comment got three replies and they're all valid points. If you're dishing out criticism, constructive though it may be, you have to be ready to get some back!

I'd second MISHA. This is relatively esoteric software, not a twitter client. It's not really competing and how useful it is is likely known by word of mouth in the community that it's designed for.  
(Version 5.1.26)

WEASEL  No , I'm not a bit touchy. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what kind of comments you'll get. And that's ALL I have to say on this matter.  
(Version 5.1.26)

MISHA  I think people who are really interested in this app probably don't care what the icon looks like.  
(Version 5.1.23)

ISTRA  OMG!

what's wrong with the icon? :-DDD

anyone here can name a lot of appz with terrific icons that are worth nothing...

the opposite is the case with Praat  
(Version 5.1.23)

WEASEL  I'm an Artist, visual representation is my specialty. I read many negative comments about Praat's icon. My comment was my personal point of view on a visual point only. Just trying to add some constructive criticism to this issue brought up in previous comments.

Yes, I agree, some software products have great looking icons ONLY. But that great looking icon appealed to your eyes & made you notice the product a bit longer.

It's the same marketing ploy you see when you go grocery shopping: "Pick Me,Pick Me!!!"   
(Version 5.1.23)

AGF...  Maybe the developers simply love that icon for whatever reason, who cares? Why giving them a bad mood for a good piece of work?

If you don´t like it, don´t download or turn off your monitor ;-)

or simply replace the icon that hurts your eyes so much with a better one on your local copy.

I´d only say THANK YOU for your work and for making it freeware.  
(Version 5.1.25)

OZZPOT  If memory serves, they said that it was because it didn't have an ear on it, and suggested it may have been unclear to me that the other object on the icon was an ear.

In truth, of course I recognized it was an ear, but;

1) It's a hard thing to work into an icon and keep it attractive. An ear is a pretty ugly, asymmetrical object. Hard to draw and hard to make look nice. They always either look too photo-realistic or too cartoony (both are frowned upon in Apple's interface guidelines). A pair of lips is the opposite; symmetrical, colourful and instinctively attractive to the human eye. It's hard coded into our brains. It's also relatively easy to render lips to any level of realism required, from photo-realistic to almost abstract.

2). I didn't feel the ear was entirely relevant. Perhaps I'm not in a position to say such a thing, but I felt the focus of the app is the study and science of speech. Of course the ear plays it's part - in the normal human perception of that speech, but that's kind of obvious. The main goal of the icon is to get across the function of the application, which is speech (represented by the mouth) analyzed graphically (represented by the sound wave), on a computer display (a common convention of analytical software). To include the ear in the design is unnecessary and only serves to overcomplicate the icon (another no-no in Apple's interface guidelines).

Those are my reasons for not including the ear. I don't think I bothered to explain that to them - I have found that the client wants what the client wants. It's hard to change their minds. It's very hard to design something when you don't agree with the design direction. If you don't think it looks good, you never know when you're finished! So, you keep plugging away until it drives you insane. I hate getting into that situation even when I'm being paid, and since I did this one for free I certainly had no incentive to rework it.

Here's the link to it anyway for anyone that missed it: http://www.ozzpot.com/icons/  
(Version 5.0.43)

KOBALT  Well, what can I say - I asked for it. Thanks, Ozzpot, very elucidating!

It doesn't excuse for one single moment the devs' attitude for insisting they keep their *very* ugly icon, though - shame on you guys! You may have designed an app that can 'create high-quality images for ... articles and doctoral theses', but you appear to not be giving any consideration to a high quality image for your own creation in the form of an icon, surely this century's ultimate condensation of the heart and soul of any software program. If the app wasn't free, I'd say you guys desperately need a marketing manager, but seeing you don't charge any money for it, you probably just don't give a rat's arse (am I allowed to say that? it seems a bit crude, however appropriate).  
(Version 5.0.43)

ZANGIEF  Well, isn't this quite the interesting story? There are so many instances of bad design choices, I just love reading about them. Still an MS Paint icon. I don't care if I can get a "high-quality image" out of this app, because the image provided as an icon is clearly low-quality. Doesn't make much sense.  
(Version 5.0.44)

SHOTGUNWEDDINGS  Holy snapping arseholes Batman.

Your icon is way way better than the stupid looking one being used by the developer.

Wonder why they are being stubborn and keep using that lame looking kiddy scrawl they call an icon??????  
(Version 5.0.40)

PAWS  I too have found this icon discussion to be entertaining and interesting to follow. At this point my wild guess why they still stick with their original logo is this:

.

"There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about."

- Oscar Wilde -

;)  
(Version 5.0.42)