Ever since the dot.com boom there have been all sorts of companies that have only ever existed online. They are nebulous entities which buy and sell and provide services, but they do not have a 'storefront' that the general public can walk into in the traditional sense.
Also, companies which previously only existed in 'real life' have now moved to digital format, either to compliment their real life formats (such as online news services) or to completely replace them.
One of the most important things online is site branding, so that the user can tell 'where they are'. One of the best ways to achieve good site branding is to have a logo. Usually logos reside in the top lefthand side of the page (on pages where script is read left to right).
How much of the information in the logo is important? Could, say, Blogger still be recognised as Blogger if it were reduced to dozens of equally-sized squares?
My idea is to take logos found online and try to roughly recreate them using HTML tables full of hexadecimal colours. The example I have here isn't very good, but it displays my idea. I couldn't recreate the "Blogger" text because I couldn't easily make an equally-sized grid in photoshop that I could fill in. Also in this example you can probably see that the 'squares' I used weren't exactly square. The brush I used didn't neatly fill the canvas so I had to fudge it a bit. But like I said, it displays my idea.
Also, what would happen if I combined a pixelised blogger logo with other pixelised logos of online services owned by Google - like YouTube? I can imagine mosaics of bright colours, spattered with black and white squares. The Google mosaic would be rather eclectic, considering its habit of buying out small startups but keeping their old branding. Microsoft's mosaic would be rather more uniform, considering they start up their own services and brand them all the same way (the "Live" brand).
Microsoft are acquiring Yahoo! and all its services (such as Flickr) - how would that affect the Microsoft mosaic?