Mozilla wants feedback on Firefox rebrand
It feels like it has been just a couple of months ago that Mozilla updated the logo of the Firefox browser.
Today the organization announced a new project to evolve the Firefox brand that better reflects the diverse nature of products that fly under its umbrella.
The classic Firefox icon, the fox with a tail in red and yellow colors that encircles a blue globe, "doesn't offer enough design tools to represent [the] entire product family" anymore according to Mozilla.
The organization put a team of product and brand designers to work to create a new design system that "can guide people smoothly from [Mozilla's] marketing to [the company's] in-product experiences".
The announcement showcases two different design systems. Nothing has been decided yet according to Mozilla and the organization asks for user feedback explicitly.
The designs that Mozilla published are not final and Mozilla notes that "each individual icon will undergo several rounds of refinement". Some icons may change completely, and the focus right now is to get the design system right.
Here is design system one:
And here is the second design system that Mozilla published on the official Firefox website.
Mozilla published several questions that it will use to evaluate the work:
- Do these two systems still feel like Firefox?
- How visually cohesive is each of them? Does each hold together?
- Can the design logic of these systems stretch to embrace new products in the future?
- Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for?
- Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?
The blog post provides additional details on the design systems. It highlights that each system is led by a masterbrand icon (the one you see at the top).
The masterbrand icon will show up in our marketing, at events, in co-branding with partners, and in places like the Google Play store where our products can be found. Who knows? Someday this icon may be what people think of when they hear the word â€œFirefox.â€
What follows are general-purpose browser icons. You may associate them with different Firefox channels.
Singularly-focused browser icons, for Firefox Rocket for instance, are shown on the next line.
The last set of icons depict new apps & services.
The icons relate to different Firefox products and it is the color and graphics that unite all of these products under the master brand.
Work has just started; Mozilla is working on typography, graphic patters, motion, naming, and more which will be ready for the final design reveal.
Still in the works are explorations of typography, graphic patterns, motion, naming, events, partnerships, and other elements of the system that, used together with consistency in the product, will form the total brand experience.
Anyone can leave a comment on the official Mozilla website, or here on the blog, to express their opinion about the suggested design families.
Now You: What is your take on these?
A bit quietschibunt and I suggest they should swap the fox for a teddy bear. All of the several questions published by Mozilla I answer with a No … but I am sure they will get over it ;-)
As Mao, the Great Walker, says: “Everyone recognizes the swamp by the bubbles that rise, but nobody knows how deep the swamp is.
All these new icons look stupid. But what are these icons below the fox like icons for?
I think Mozilla should focus on improving the browser itself and not wasting time and money on some stupid looking icons. Most of the users don’t care how the icons of an app looks like
Hundreds, if not thousands, of WONTFIX bugs and dropped features ignored by Mozilla for want of time and resources. Fortunately, we now know that its time and resources are being put to excellent use.
Fortunately, very few of the graphic designers working on the new symbology are also software devs.
…and yet the money that the spend and the organizational resources they use are the same as those that would be used by devs to accomplish real work on a more functional browser.
So you’re arguing that Mozilla should fire their graphic design team?
+1000 Agree completely.
Graphics designers cannot do the work of developers. You also cannot throw an infinitude of developers at a code base and have it be bug-free over night.
I don’t blame the graphics designers per se, they’re just doing their jobs. I *can* complain about devs letting countless bugs – documented and discussed in great detail on Bugzilla, not one-off shots by some anonymous user – go unfixed. Some bugs have been festering for many years, and for an entity of Mozilla’s clout this is a disgrace. I don’t expect them to fix their entire code base overnight, but there are some recurring themes manifested in loads of reported bugs, which should be prioritised. I am definitely seeing Google addressing longstanding complaints, and I am not sensing the same responsiveness from Mozilla. Sad, ironic, call it whatever you like.
And yet it would be nice if had reduced bugs in a year or so and longstanding bugs received a organized pr campaign to fix instead of you know.. the logo.
Horrible. Were they inspired by the Instagram logo?
you cant even see that its a fox anymore..
Hate both schemes, funnily enough the questions are answered better by the old logo, particularly the sense of world embracing non-profit.
I use Furfox Tail Twister as a theme and consider the bland abstract logo a poor second. Surely we can have detail not mere shapes?
Let me put it nicely:
Are the fucking insane?
Just leave the poor thing alone and try making it a good browser. Maybe in some years I can then switch back from WF to FF.
The whole design team should be fired, so they don’t feel the need to mess with stuff every half year to justify their salary.
And here we discovered why I stick with Pale Moon and Vivaldi. Firefox devs are doing some bad drugs.
It seems that the more market share they are losing the more they go google way. No functions browser (including insulting anyone that asks for any kind of useful function in it) and now no information branding. Next step is copying android P’s ultimate achievement in information density. A perfect, mathematical zero.
I don’t give the slightest damn to a company’s brand, it neither interests nor affects me in whatever way and appears to me at best as a cherry on the cake. What matters is the cake.
@Tom: the principle behind your thinking is right to a large extent, but not all the way. I am sure that if the initial logo were of e.g. a dog shitting, you might or might not have chosen the browser. If you had, and they would then propose to change the logo, I am quite certain you would be happy with the change. Then again, not knowing you personally I cannot be 100% of that last statement.
@klaas, as always our opinion concerning ourselves and our opinion concerning how others may feel impacted. Of course a company considers the majority of users and I can imagine that a majority of users are interested and even impacted by a company’s brand. Which is why I should always have two answers when above I gave but the one concerning myself, in a straightforward way because marketing, communication, brands and logos get on my nerves given I perceive them as lures.
“I am sure that if the initial logo were of e.g. a dog shitting, you might or might not have chosen the browser.”
Not in my case, it wouldn’t have changed anything. Only the cake interests me. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply everywhere and especially to ladies where I often lack to dig for the “inside beauty” and true personality because a silhouette may be such an attractive (or its opposite) lure :=)
As General T. Hawack would say: “I give a damn if Firefox changes the underwear”
But honestly, imagine the first icon in grayscale and mucho shiny chrome around, wouldn’t it be a perfect modern patch for any flics uniform, especially the much beloved CRS?
It’s all about YOUR security, Citoyen du Monde ..
…swallow this cherry â†’ https://youtu.be/IBlX_69XHtU?t=38s
I suggest they adopt the one on the left in the second row of System 1.
Total success – chromification complete!
[quote]What is your take on these?[/quote]
An icon of a laughing developer giving us all the middle finger.
Both make me feel nauseous, like it’s some acid trip. Horrible, both of them. So much colors, so little taste. I remeber when Firefox used to have a normal logo back in 3.6.9, and a good logo at that:
It’s a shame that the browser is dying, they are idiotically copying Chrome, removing what made Firefox unique and powerful and they are focused on changing the logos… They deserve to fail and go bankrupt for tbeir stupidity.
What’s the intention here? Reviving Firefox or signalling its demise?
on this they want feedback, but on important things like keep RSS we are ignored ?
system 2 , but blocking all updates, so i can keep on using important functionality
I wish they’d stop telling us they’re evolving Firefox because it is what their users want. It isn’t. They’re following their own agenda of Chromifying the browser. Many of us have already reverted to Waterfox. Fire all of your management and hire people who genuinely listen to what your users want. WE DON’T WANT CHROME.
System 1, row three, first icon looks a bit like Chrome. Maybe that is revealing Mozilla’s lust to transform FF into Chrome. I installed Chrome this past Saturday to check out the Postman addon. One look at Chrome’s lack of security & privacy options immediately informed me I had made a mistake and deleted that devbox VM snapshot and continued on with Firefox dev version.
For those of us who still love Firefox, we don’t use it because of a logo nor Moz’s marketing efforts. We were early adopters because Moz’s culture along with Firefox’s features and power, all of which drew us in strong. Remember when no other browser had tabs? Powerful user settings? etc? We were early evangelist for this beautiful browser and spread the word far and wide… a few of us still are evangelist though we no longer use a bull horn; just a whisper that it’s slightly better than any MS offering and it’s not a spyware package named Chrome. The enthusiasm is gone and an icon will not bring it back; especially if that “icon” looks like Chrome.
PS: Read some of those Moz dev forums, they inform why FF is on a collision course to irrelevancy. You’ll see some heavy discussions about features between FF purest and corporatist. They are all mostly good people on a mission. However, I suspect the reason I still use FF is because of those FF purest who still carry a flame.
Just pointing out that Opera actually introduced a form of tabbed browsing (sort of) before Mozilla ;)
All the new designs are awful, I can’t recognize a fox from a first direct sight, please leave the current logo it’s the best for now.
If Mozilla wants to truly represent Firefox, they should just wrap the fox around the letter ‘g’.
I like it the way it is, spend your resources on making it better, not this foolishness.
“Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for? Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?”
I am more convinced now than ever before that Mozilla will have destroyed Firefox by 2020. There’s something rotten within the company culture when questions like these come out of it.
Yes, this is an extremely important issue to tackle. Since Mozilla does not have any other problems to solve they should put as much manpower and money in it as possible. I am sure they will do just fine as they did in the past. My idea for a FF logo: use a jackass. It will say everything that needs to be said.
Who are they trying to fool?
Just make it as close to a Chrome icon as possible.
Ugly, Ugly, Ugly.
lol they’re copying gitlab logo
I wish they would be interested in feedback on their recent technical decisions, to remove useful features.
If you have actual arguments that they haven’t thought of, I’m sure they’ll be interested. You probably won’t convince them of the opposite, though, as they do have good reasons for removing and have had a discussion about the negative implications of it.
After all, your opinion is just that: Your opinion.
It’s not the ultimate and correct feedback that they have to adhere to. You’re one user, just as those 99.9% of users that don’t use these features are each individually also one user. Those 99.9% might not particularly care, but if Mozilla thinks they can invest their resources better to match the opinion of those 99.9% of individual users, then that, at least to me, seems perfectly credible.
Amazing. They change the browser for forced upgrades, and then bleat about rebranding. Most people don’t care what brand fuel they put in their cars, as long as it works. Ditto browser.
I forsee some feature inclusions that require subsription, or other meothod to wring recurring revenue from installs.
With MS making Office a rented product, times are a changin’.
@TimH: “They change the browser for forced upgrades”
They did no such thing. They did make it much less obvious how to disable the upgrading process, but you can still disable it.
Sadly I think Firefox is done, Mozilla the corporation has killed off any sort of resemblance of what Firefox once was. Other then some sort of lip service to the effect its still all about the user. Their focus these days is so off point of what’s important I just do not think anyone at Mozilla knows what the priorities should be.
@John IL, I love trains, old locomotives of the wild wild West, those of the roaring twenties. But times change, high-speed trains no longer have the charm of the past. Same with browsers all dedicated to speed and functionalities. I was furious when Firefox Quantum appeared because I was about to lose several add-ons as comfortable as the thick seats’ cloth of Agatha Christie’s Trans Europe Express. C’est la vie. Progress is hard to define, depends on what foot you stand I guess. We adapt ourselves as much as we participate to progress, and some of us don’t adapt, sometimes for rational reasons sometimes because of nostalgia only, and sometimes because we don’t consider that progress as it is is truly progress. Maybe the best option is to stay on the train nevertheless and make our seats as comfortable as possible, to bring our sandwiches if the train restaurant ain’t what it used to be :=)
I criticize freely but I wouldn’t want to fall in the trap of condemning systematically as I often read it. Seems to me many of us sort of jump on the opportunity of bullying someone, something because of what we consider, objectively or not, as a mistake, as a wrong policy. I don’t think this is right even if I happen myself to be tempted by such attitudes. There may be exasperation and even revolt but hatred is not the right answer IMO.
My observing is, unfortunately HTML5 opened a Pandora’s box for the average user and created a paradise for companies with a plethora of new technologies emerging on the horizon.
The “man in the middle” – between the millstones big business, banks, social media + many other actors and the [super]user – are browser vendors, trying to create a balance between browser speed, comfort and privacy … and don’t [… or] vanish from the market.
If Firefox get’s rid of outdated features, this sounds logic and Quantum is one(1) necessary to cope with the future challenges. Not to forget, mobile internet usage surpassed desktop or notebooks usage worldwide November 2016.
I dont buy it that Firefox is done. Done are this cozy_foxy_idealistic_ideas about racing around the world and spreading knowledge like fire, embracing and connecting people all over the world.
The powerful never liked this idea! … there is not much room for nostalgia anymore.
Ni dieu ni maÃ®tre, no Chrome nor Edge … â™« â˜€
Napster, MySpace, Firefox…their time came and went…plenty of browser choice nowadays, after using then screwing their base, who cares what nutty BS Mozilla are up anymore?
A pox on their house
@Yes they are ******* insane.
Maybe if they spent less time designing T-shirts & logos, and spent more time NOT wrecking the browser, their market share wouldn’t be tanking.
Both sets are fairly ugly to my eyes, but if I were forced to choose between the two, I’d go with system 2.
The larger issue I can see with the exact icons presented is that it’s not clear what the icons are intended to represent. The fox-based icons mean the browser, of course, and I can spot an envelope in there which I assume means “email”. But what in the world are those other ones?
I think they should use the “hear no users” Monkey with it’s hands covering it’s ears.
It’s been shown time and again that Mozilla’s ever-constant rebranding isn’t going to wean people off Chrome no matter what happens, given how Firefox’s marketshare continues to plummet.
Maybe Mozilla should just stick to what worked in the past rather than simplify the browser by removing useful features and functionality as this only alienates existing users.
There’s nothing wrong with having a niche. The obsession with emulating competition in the pursuit of profit kills a lot of Firefox’s major selling points.
Now just for the sake of it, here is my take on the subject.
1. It’s a real branding issue. They have a real business problem on their hands. They are perceived as a browser-only company, and they want to diversify into other fields. This is a classical business problem, and they better get it right.
2. Of course, mistreating the browser the way they do, and especially giving the cold shoulder to their faithful power users of a decade, is the worst possible starting point. You can’t diversify while ruining your foundations. You can’t wallpaper over bad product decisions with glitzy marketing.
3. Asking users their opinion, at least in public, is a silly thing to do. This is a serious and critical decision, and it should be made by professionals. Graphic design and marketing professionals. Polling the public on projects is a good thing, as long as it is done in secret. Otherwise, users react… as we do here.
4. And last, because this is the least important thing : the proposed projects are very bad. They have even managed to ruin the original Firefox logo, which is a very good one. This, at least, is coherent with what they’ve done to the code…
1. True. That’s the problem they face. Due to the dwindling market share with the browser they want to take whatever money they still get out of it and diversify into other fields. The problem is until now they haven’t found a solution.
2. It seems the problem is that the group of casual users is bigger and more willing to spend money. So mozilla execs are probably focusing on casual users because they think they won’t survive otherwise. The generation of professionals that recommended Firefox to 20 friends is gone.
3. Indeed. But they are doing this because they want to be percieved as the “good company that cares”
In general the logo issue highlights a growing tension at Mozilla. Mozilla is in the interesting position that the long-term outlook is cloudy, but due to the large user base and their finances they can live off their position for a long time. It also means that bad decisions aren’t directly reflected within their finances. Which is a big problem. Auto-updating here, Live-Bookmarks gone there: Each time they do something that focuses on the average user, they weaken their overall reputation with the professionals.
But what purpose does a desktop browser even have in todays world for average users? 2-3 years from now Desktop will be primarily used by a tiny tech-savyy minority, and the average user will be on mobile. The average user has already decided to go for the more consistent and faster competition that works with everything in the modern internet: Chrome.
“The generation of professionals that recommended Firefox to 20 friends is gone.”
We’re not gone. We’re just not recommending Firefox anymore. Mozilla could win us back if they wanted to (but I agree with you, they don’t seem to want to).
“they are doing this because they want to be percieved as the â€œgood company that caresâ€”
Then they’ve miscalculated. Asking for comments out of one side of your mouth while telling you that your comments don’t mean anything out of the other side of your mouth is not presenting an image of a company that cares.
You have a point about the smartphone possibly engulfing the PC for personal use. However businesses are here to stay, and business work will stay on PCs, with mobile devices being part of their eco-system. You can’t do serious work on a small screen.
Also, a company can make hefty profits on the mass market, but it can also make hefty profits on a B to B market, or niche markets nobody has ever heard about.
Why do all roads lead to crapification? It’s like some immutable law that can not be subverted.
In the French juridical language, the notion of “Quantum” defines the amount or duration of a sanction. IMO these Firefox design systems already gives an idea of the duration of the sanction Firefox’s users will have to endure.
Pathetic. Consider FireFox absolutely dead.
They don’t listen to power users and trying to mimic pink-fasion-for-dumb-blondies.
Keep on rockin’ with CyberFox 5.9.1 amd x64
I see a risk that with the failure of Mozilla, the free browser ecosystem will become more fragmented. In the end this could harm us all because web designers and platform makers will reduce their support of these free browsers in favor of commercially controlled ones.
Web designers and platform makers shouldn’t be designing things for a particular browser in the first place. They should be sticking with the HTML standard instead.
Route 666, lol!
what is wrong with the internet in these times. everywhere hate speech, terrible. i find something playful for a change funny.
What is wrong with the Internet these days ? Everywhere I turn, I hear people complaining about something called “hate speech”. I’m sorry, but a few decades ago, the notion of “hate speech” did not even exist. People were still sane, more or less. They still had the guts to accept criticism, without running to their mothers. (Or, more benign even, criticism of a third party, totally unrelated to them.)
What is “hate speech”, anyway ? “Hate speech” is people spewing their hate over people who say they don’t like something, or some people. Because according to the anti-hate speakers, they should, instead, love love love those people, or things.
Well, guess what ? Some people, or things, or software programs, or software publishing houses for that matter, are likable. And some are not.
And it’s perfectly legitimate — nay, highly necessary — to say it when you think that some things, or institutions, or people are bad.
Unless you pretend that you, yourself, love everybody and sundry. And then, you’d be a glaring hypocrite.
Incidentally, criticising things you don’t like is what a blog is about. So, enough with that “hate speech” rigmarole.
“Everywhere I turn, I hear people complaining about something called â€œhate speechâ€.”
Everywhere YOU turn, no surprise that people complaining about something called â€œhate speechâ€.
Yeah, sure. Now SHOUTING ON A BLOG is not hate speech, is it ? You leftists are all the same : you preach one thing, and do the opposite. Thanks for proving my point.
Next time, try to find a more intelligent retort, if you absolutely need to. Everybody is swamped with warnings about “hate speech” on every TV channel under the sun, from every Western governement, it’s written in the law in scores of countries, so, no, it’s not me. Those rules are aimed at you as well, unless you live in some cave in the jungle. And if you think you can’t be the victim of them, think again.
@Clairvaux… what the heck anyway, I’m not the site admin, you can of course write all you want. I was just exasperated but I guess there’s no point mentioning it. As I said I do appreciate many of your comments, you’re quite aware in the technological area. Keep on the good work. We’re here (and elsewhere) to dialog, share after all, no point in getting upset, I’ll just take people as they are.
The beat (musical!) goes on :=)
“You leftists are all the same”
As the wolf in the cage constantly wipes his snout on the bars, so you always rub your speech against the same sound sequences into which you are imprisoned.
I apologize for the inconvenience to the blog owner for this unavoidable short squabble with you. Besides, I am convinced, he – and a gazillion other bloggers – got some slightly different idea about blogging than your crotchety poor approach:
“criticising things you donâ€™t like is what a blog is about”.
Again, it’s not my aim wasting time on strange beings, locked out of the normal acoustics of life, isolated in their own noise circle. I would rather live in some cave in the jungle. Nothing wrong with that!
Take care of your guts, greetings to your mother and hurry up now!
Yours truly …L.m.a.A.
They must have hired some silly marketing company to try and increase market share. None of this makes any difference unless the target audience is 7 years old. Not surprised, most online stuff seems like it was contrived by 10 year olds who aren’t allowed to go outside or adult children who grew up on phone garbage.
But seriously, all those pretty little shapes would make a great mobile to hang over a baby’s crib.
I’m relieved to see so many others with similar opinions. All is not lost!
“All is not lost!”
I wish I were so optimistic. However, it seems to me that Mozilla is pretty much basing their decisions on telemetry data rather than on what the opinions of real people are.
Anybody else yearning for the good old days of version 3.6?
I think that the icon is not important at all. What we need is stability, speed and bug-free software.
In order to better understand Mozilla’s management mindset, have a look at the rules of their official thread on Reddit :
“Always be civil and respectful. Don’t be toxic, hostile, or a troll, especially towards Mozilla employees.”
“Don’t be a bigot. No form of bigotry will be tolerated.”
“Don’t post conspiracy theories. Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding. If you’re concerned : ask.”
To sum it up nicely, Mozilla is fascist. Or communist. Not much of a difference, anyway. Yeah, I suppose this is “hostile”, and you can’t be hostile, can you ? Especially towards Mozilla employees ?
What is being “toxic” ? Who gets to define “bigots” ?
Expressing the opinion that Mozilla has bad intentions, or that its actions are skewed by the way it’s financed, is of course a “conspiracy theory”. Mozilla is a force for good. Mozilla’s employees cannot do harm. They are on God’s side. They are leftists, you fool, and the left is always benevolent — and right about everything, don’t you know that ?
If you want to say something, ask the boss first. “– Dear Mr. Mozilla, are you intent on destroying everything that used to make Firefox a great browser ? — Of course not, you dummy ! — Thank you for you kind words, Mr. Mozilla, now I realise how stupid I was.”
“That beast of the Apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make war with the powerusers, is sitting on the throne of Mozilla, like a lion ready for his prey.”
â€” Saint Clairvaux, abbot of ghacks.net on his daily crusade against this flat-earthy Leftists-on-the-dark-side-of-the-Mozillas
I cannot subscribe to this point of view. My belief is that there is quite a deal of phantasms deployed, triggered by conspiracy state of minds, by hatred, by hysteria, be it on social sites as on plain blogs. I admit being fed up by political intrusion as an argument to discredit or qualify applications and software, “leftist” and “fascist” are common references nowadays when they have nothing to do in a user’s critic of software.
The truth is that Mozilla has a different communication scheme than Google, a lack of communication rather, they struggle between an honest aim of quality/innovation/efficiency (with what each of us may criticize, objectively) and the rules of business (because money is always a problem when it’s not the aim). Google on the other hand knows very well how to make itself desired.
I’d suggest intellectual honesty to all of us, calming down for the most excited among us.
@ Tom Hawack
You’re perfectly entitled to your technical or political opinions, whatever they are.
What I strongly object to, is your trying to act like the school marm of this blog, urging me to “calm down” each time my political opinions do not align with yours.
I have been blogging for more than a decade across several countries, and nobody has been able yet to make me “calm down”, as you say in such a rude, trollish and duplicitious manner.
I don’t hear you asking very much for “calm” when scores of commenters here excoriate, insult or otherwise vent their anger, and, yes, hatred over such and such software program, or such and such digital company.
However, you pretend to berate me for “hatred”, “hysteria” and what not when I happen to join the dots, and call the bluff of Mozilla, and others, over the leftist values they make such a fuss about.
It’s not me bringing political ideology into tech. It’s the Mozillas and Googles and and Apples and Facebooks, and then they proceed to contradict their own teachings — as the left is wont to do.
Yes, I resent being bossed over by Mozilla employees on the very official Reddit thread of Firefox. That’s not conducive to the scientific attitude that should prevail in discussing technology. Especially when the left is supposed to be about freedom, democracy, tolerance, etc.
They are being the culprit there. There are dangling politics right under my nose in their house rules. I’m the aggrieved party. I’m reacting to that. It’s a bit rich on your part to pretend the opposite, and lay the blame on me.
Incidentally, I follow many official threads of tech outfits, and not all think it polite, let alone smart to act that way. The Reddit thread of Proton Mail has none of that crap. Proton Mail is into cryptography and privacy, so of course it caters to political activists from both sides of the spectrum, who could be strongly inconvenienced (say, killed) if it were not for services such as Proton Mail’s.
Now if you think that it’s smart to brand oneself as boisterously left-wing when trying to grow a company, either from a business perspective or from the perspective of designing quality tech products, you’re free to contradict me, and explain us why that would be so. Please explain us why it would be a smart business decision to alienate, intimidate and bully half your potential customers, to begin with. Especially while practicing the opposite of what you preach.
But don’t blame me for the rotten state of Firefox, and the, how did you say ? hatred, yes, that’s seething within scores of previously fanatical supporters of the browser here, and that is plain for everybody to see.
For the time being, the facts on the ground tend to support my position, not yours. I’m personnally mad as hell over such attitudes in the industry, I hate their guts for it — and good luck trying to calm me down.
@clairvaux, I was not referring to you in particular even if you feel and are concerned, I was not condemning free speech and critics but only bothered by your continuous reference to political assertions, ties which have nothing to do on a technological blog. I already expressed in the past my exasperation concerning your quasi fanatical lyricism all in your virulent comments against those who disagree with you; since you seem to have calmed down in that register yet unfortunately replaced by populist comments totally off-topic. Maybe are you too young and/or uneducated when it comes to political references such as those extreme you refer to so often; so often but not always because you do happen to include pertinent comments which is why I’ll keep you in my prayers :=)
Have they ever polled users on what features they should nuke next?
Besides I see the new logos has become less detailed over the years, this is a reflection of Moz://a as a less defined and future Mozilla will just become a blur…
For some reason they seem to go with the data from the users that have actually enabled telemetry and ignore everyone else.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they say to themselves “everyone who disables it is no longer part of our friendly caring family” *Godfather soundtrack playing in the background*
To sum up all of the previous comments and also my own feeling: Boo!
It’s dead. The primitive logic used to justify the idiocy of Moz://a as a corporate ID shows that the lights are on but there’s nobody home. These bad logos are just more of the same and the touchy feely notion of leaving such decisions to a democratic vote is, just as @clairvaux pointed out, a deplorable choice when professionals should be doing it. It’s a duplicitous cult now as much as a browser.
Who gives a flying f—?
“doesn’t offer enough design tools to represent [the] entire product family”
Firefox is a web browser, what else is there?
Firefox, Firefox OS, Focus, Cliqz, Ghostery, Pocket, The Mozilla Extended Telemetry Toolkit for Suckers, and the Mozilla Big Raised Middle Finger.
Haha, and that last one does sound somewhat interesting. What does it do?
Averages are bigger in numbers, and bigger numbers represent money and votes. Majorities are less qualified, or ignorant about certain things, so it is easier to deceive them, to lure them. Intelligence is represented relatively in smaller numbers, this means less money and votes.
What they are doing is collectivism. Those taking decisions are less intelligent than those who contribute meaningfully to Firefox.They have corrupted the browser to sell it to the average, the mediocre, the stupid, the collective. What they are doing is parasitism, opportunism.
The problem with Mozilla is that the majority working there should be fired, they are truly incompetent, “educated idiots”. It is their nature, it is biological, they are NOT going to change, they can’t understand life, merit, normality, sanity, art, balance, moral, hierarchy, logic, etc.
Your paragraph #1 : I agree.
Your paragraph #2 : I disagree because you are mentioning intelligence and tying it to social groups, entities. I’ve never believed that masses are stupid (what is intelligence by the way?) because masses are a sum of individuals and if there is a problem it’s less a matter of an individual’s intelligence than the fact he/she forgets his capabilities and awareness because letting himself drown in a “mass attitude”. As for those taking decisions who would be, quoting you “less intelligent than those who contribute meaningfully to Firefox.” that’s quite a challenge your assertion is posing. I thinnk both have different responsibilities and this hiatus is observable in all hierarchies.
Your paragraph #3 is, IMO, what a comment blinded by irritation can lead to.
The current FF logo and the current Chrome logo are eerily similar.
Changing the icons is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Looks like they hired a designer from an early 00s pharma company.
both designs seem to be good candidate entries for https://jonyiveredesignsthings.tumblr.com
As Mozilla loves and adores Google Chrome so much and they do everything to be as close to Chrome as possible…
Why they simply do not adopt the Chrome logo and use different colors…
There is not much difference anyway anymore between the browsers. You have now same limited function and limited add-ons.
The only difference is that Firefox uses a different engine.
Waste of time ;)
These logos thoroughly suck. Years of branding and recognition going right down the toilet here guys. Quit waisting your time, stick with what you’ve got – IT WORKS and is WELL RECOGNIZED. Thousands of my clients are going to be so confused and flustered if you do something os insanely stupid.
Fix your history! Quit removing functions! Stop changing spec’s on extension devs! GET WITH REALITY and stop living in this little silly dreamworld you seem to want to perpetuate.
You’re absolutely right about clients. If they change the logo so significantly and abruptly, some people might think that they’re infected with a virus which is masquerading as Firefox. It’s pretty ridiculous to change the logo like this for no real reason whatsoever.
I must echo others’ displeasure at this rebrand. It’s pointless and is going to serve only to confuse. They surely could spend these kinds of resources fixing bugs, adding features, or even on Thunderbird.
Fix bugs; add new privacy and security features; drop Google and other spies from the browser; and then, maybe, change the icons.
With the current pandemic and the unknown timeline, until things return to what they were, every business needs to get serious and double down on digital marketing.
With that in mind, the company I work at is offering a special digital marketing bundle that includes marketing explainer videos + landing pages + professional content and graphics to boost your digital presence and increase your online footprint.
No one knows how long this corona lockdown will last – its time to jump on the digital marketing bandwagon.