What were they thinking?

There is a huge debate going on about the new 2012 London Olympics logo. Some people hate it, others defend it passionately. Over the past weeks, all the branding blogs that I read have been abuzz with debate.

In the "love it" camp, you have arguments like:
"2012 is not a logo in the conventional sense. It is a conduit for a larger experience....The 2012 brandmark introduces context via itself which is why we need different tools to asses its value. It does not present itself as the sole content for contemplation, it is a channel for content as well as content itself. You miss half the plot if you assess it as a thing in itself."-Andrew, London

And in the "hate it" camp, you have critiques that discuss the dated appearance and colors (1980's anyone?), the child-like attempt at graffiti, and the approach to reaching a younger audience, and people's general distaste for the design on the whole. Personally, I don't care for it, either. To me, the colors don't scream "athletic achievement", "world-renown tournament", "prestige", or any of the Olympics messages.

I'd love to get your take on the design. What do you think of it? Is it successful?