"What other hidden surprises are in the code?" would be one thought. If you can't trust them to leave the icon alone, what else can't you trust them with?
(Note that I don't necessarily agree with this but it's an obvious path.)
From my perspective, it's the opposite. I think that "If they're smart and fun to implement a Christmas hat on the icon, they're possibly nice guys, and won't do something sinister".
This is coming from my 20+ years of experience with computers and applications. I've seen that programs with easter eggs may have some stupid bugs, but won't have something sinister inside them. OTOH, applications with some very serious and no-nonsense attitude has the most advanced "phone home" mechanisms.
This is my experience though. I'd happily stand corrected if I'm wrong.
> This is my experience though. I'd happily stand corrected if I'm wrong.
I don't think anyone can call your own experience "wrong" per se. I'd point to the Google logograms as a "smart and fun [easter egg]" per your definition but they are definitely one of the more sinister corporations.
> I'd point to the Google logograms as a "smart and fun [easter egg]" per your definition but they are definitely one of the more sinister corporations.
