I've been unsure of it at first, now I think it's fine and prefer it over the original. I like the meaning behind it (two screens, something like anydesk), and its visual appeal is fine to me (IMO superior to the old one, though I'd reckon there could be something better than both).

Being able to 'do that in literally 30 seconds in nearly any photo editor' isn't a negative, but a positive. In the world of graphic design, all you need is something recognizable, complex enough as to not be confused with basic shapes and generic icons, but simple at the same time as to be easily readable/recognizable.

There's no point in striving for something too complex if you can do without it. The YouTube icon for instance is just a rounded rectangle with a play button in the middle, but it works well regardless of its simplicity.

The new icon looks so low effort. It is literally two colored square boxes that are overlapped and skewed. I can do that in literally 30 seconds in nearly any photo editor.

I get what they tried to do with the new logo. With that color scheme it's obvious. The problem is that the logo itself is rather uninteresting.

I don't necessarily mind the design but I think the color choice is horrible. It doesn't look good anywhere, and is especially an eyesore in my desktop system tray.

I love the new logo. The old one reminds me of some random business software or something.

The new logo is boring and way less aesthetically pleasing then the old logo. The new logo feels almost retro and feels like a major step back.

I agree. It was better. Just add some color to it, voilá.