12 ms·

Not a single one of them looks better than the one they already have and at least half of them are awful. Besides the name makes way more sense with the dinosau

Not a single one of them looks better than the one they already have and at least half of them are awful. Besides the name makes way more sense with the dinosaur logo.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
I entirely concur. I don't see why they think they need a re-branding either. It's more like they need a strategy to compete with chrome. Or at least one successful project other than Firefox.
- Sylos 10y ago
  That's the thing, though, a huge portion of the success of Chrome is not caused by it being a particularly good browser, but rather by it being bundled with other software or advertised for on the world's most popular webpage. For Mozilla to be able to compete with that by purely being technologically superior, they'd have to be so ridiculously good that Chrome would look like Internet Explorer 6 in comparison. As long as that's not the case, it's hard to tell people to switch to Firefox, because it still is subjective which the better browser is. So, they have to do some form of advertising, and a recognizable branding can help with that.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    How again is advertising ( which Google is in a much better position to do anyways ) going to get people choose a Browser which as you pointed out is not technically superior and requires additional steps for users to install? Originally I thought their strategy was to offer an alternative ecosystem (Persona, Thunderbird) which could potentially have matured in integration with Firefox to provide a better experience than on Chrome (maybe they also could have purchased Evernote or some similar product that benefits greatly from a dedicated ecosystem). But they killed off the former two and failed with FirefoxOS, so I have no idea what their strategy is at this point ( probably most of their market-share is exactly those that switched to Firefox when the choice was firefox vs. ie6 but that's a constantly diminishing segment ).
    - Sylos 10y ago
      By advertising not for being technologically superior, but by getting people to realize that hey, maybe you don't want to stick all of your data into that proprietary hole where the biggest advertising company in the world sits on the other end. That's something which is hard to explain in person, but can be communicated rather well as a general message.
      - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
        > but by getting people to realize that hey, maybe you don't want to stick all of your data into that proprietary hole where the biggest advertising company in the world sits on the other end. That argument works for maybe 1% of browser users - that's not nearly enough to support Mozilla. That said having a dedicated user-base that really doesn't want to switch helps a lot but it seems to me like they are blowing by failing to do anything for the rest of users.
        Sylos 10y ago
        I think, you underestimate for how many people this works. Non-technical people very much orient themselves based on what they know they can trust. If they don't understand the consequences of something, they will try to err on the safe side. See for example anti-virus software. This will is not terribly strong, as even already having to remember a few more letters in a password can completely shatter it, but in the case of Firefox vs. Chrome, that difference is practically nonexistent for the average user, so being told to use Firefox, because it's safer for you, for reasons that you don't understand, but smart people say it, so it's probably true, that can very much influence them to switch over.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    I switched to Chrome because it is great. Most other people I know switched to it was because it is great. Firefox was very good at one point but really was yo-yoing in quality about the time when chrome was released. It does seem a lot better now, but Chrome is still high quality. They earned their spot.
nothis 10y ago
What's their current logo? Lowercase "mozilla"? That dinosaur isn't there anymore, is it? I rather like the Moz://a logo. Beyond geeky, beyond clever. Maybe too clever, I dunno.
- raimue 10y ago
  The :// thing would be too close to the new curl logo, introduced only a few months ago: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-logo/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-logo/
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    It's funny, but such a similar concept as used in the Curl logo looks really professional. I'd not seen their new logo before. The typeface, the hint to pcb tracks, makes it work really well. I like it a lot! So I went back for a longer, closer, look. I dug into every logo's individual page. The FB mockups reveal much. Moz:// is the best of a horrible bunch, but apart from making me think strongly of another web brand, it's bland. They're all expressed as though someone just got their hands on MS Publisher. The connector, utterly meaningless and indecipherable. Particularly with the colour choices, makes me think of another Google app icon, like Picasa. Reminds me of BA's universally derided 1990s £50m tail art redesign (It didn't last long). Open button is some random control on a Chinese media player. Another "universal" icon rather than logo. Of the rest they have no redeeming features, to my eyes, whatsoever.
- Sylos 10y ago
  Yeah, lowercase "mozilla" is pretty much their current logo, often in combination with the rounded shape that tabs in Firefox have. The dinosaur sort of exists still, but it's essentially never used in publicity work and I doubt that anyone outside of tech could recognize it. I mean, it's too generic anyways. No one who doesn't happen to know that that dinosaur is the exact dinosaur that Mozilla uses, will recognize it as logo for Mozilla. They will just think that it's a random dinosaur. And while I personally like "mozilla" and like it better as any of the designs shown here, I can understand why they want to switch it out. "mozilla" is not terribly recognizable and doesn't pop into the eye. Also takes a lot of space on a poster or similar.
oDot 10y ago
True. They should do a modern take of the dinosaur logo
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Not a single one of them looks better than the one they already have and at least half of them are awful. Besides the name makes way more sense with the dinosaur logo.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

I entirely concur. I don't see why they think they need a re-branding either. It's more like they need a strategy to compete with chrome. Or at least one successful project other than Firefox.

Sylos 10y ago
That's the thing, though, a huge portion of the success of Chrome is not caused by it being a particularly good browser, but rather by it being bundled with other software or advertised for on the world's most popular webpage. For Mozilla to be able to compete with that by purely being technologically superior, they'd have to be so ridiculously good that Chrome would look like Internet Explorer 6 in comparison. As long as that's not the case, it's hard to tell people to switch to Firefox, because it still is subjective which the better browser is. So, they have to do some form of advertising, and a recognizable branding can help with that.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  How again is advertising ( which Google is in a much better position to do anyways ) going to get people choose a Browser which as you pointed out is not technically superior and requires additional steps for users to install? Originally I thought their strategy was to offer an alternative ecosystem (Persona, Thunderbird) which could potentially have matured in integration with Firefox to provide a better experience than on Chrome (maybe they also could have purchased Evernote or some similar product that benefits greatly from a dedicated ecosystem). But they killed off the former two and failed with FirefoxOS, so I have no idea what their strategy is at this point ( probably most of their market-share is exactly those that switched to Firefox when the choice was firefox vs. ie6 but that's a constantly diminishing segment ).
  - Sylos 10y ago
    By advertising not for being technologically superior, but by getting people to realize that hey, maybe you don't want to stick all of your data into that proprietary hole where the biggest advertising company in the world sits on the other end. That's something which is hard to explain in person, but can be communicated rather well as a general message.
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      > but by getting people to realize that hey, maybe you don't want to stick all of your data into that proprietary hole where the biggest advertising company in the world sits on the other end. That argument works for maybe 1% of browser users - that's not nearly enough to support Mozilla. That said having a dedicated user-base that really doesn't want to switch helps a lot but it seems to me like they are blowing by failing to do anything for the rest of users.
      - Sylos 10y ago
        I think, you underestimate for how many people this works. Non-technical people very much orient themselves based on what they know they can trust. If they don't understand the consequences of something, they will try to err on the safe side. See for example anti-virus software. This will is not terribly strong, as even already having to remember a few more letters in a password can completely shatter it, but in the case of Firefox vs. Chrome, that difference is practically nonexistent for the average user, so being told to use Firefox, because it's safer for you, for reasons that you don't understand, but smart people say it, so it's probably true, that can very much influence them to switch over.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  I switched to Chrome because it is great. Most other people I know switched to it was because it is great. Firefox was very good at one point but really was yo-yoing in quality about the time when chrome was released. It does seem a lot better now, but Chrome is still high quality. They earned their spot.

nothis 10y ago

What's their current logo? Lowercase "mozilla"? That dinosaur isn't there anymore, is it? I rather like the Moz://a logo. Beyond geeky, beyond clever. Maybe too clever, I dunno.

raimue 10y ago
The :// thing would be too close to the new curl logo, introduced only a few months ago: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-logo/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-logo/
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  It's funny, but such a similar concept as used in the Curl logo looks really professional. I'd not seen their new logo before. The typeface, the hint to pcb tracks, makes it work really well. I like it a lot! So I went back for a longer, closer, look. I dug into every logo's individual page. The FB mockups reveal much. Moz:// is the best of a horrible bunch, but apart from making me think strongly of another web brand, it's bland. They're all expressed as though someone just got their hands on MS Publisher. The connector, utterly meaningless and indecipherable. Particularly with the colour choices, makes me think of another Google app icon, like Picasa. Reminds me of BA's universally derided 1990s £50m tail art redesign (It didn't last long). Open button is some random control on a Chinese media player. Another "universal" icon rather than logo. Of the rest they have no redeeming features, to my eyes, whatsoever.
Sylos 10y ago
Yeah, lowercase "mozilla" is pretty much their current logo, often in combination with the rounded shape that tabs in Firefox have. The dinosaur sort of exists still, but it's essentially never used in publicity work and I doubt that anyone outside of tech could recognize it. I mean, it's too generic anyways. No one who doesn't happen to know that that dinosaur is the exact dinosaur that Mozilla uses, will recognize it as logo for Mozilla. They will just think that it's a random dinosaur. And while I personally like "mozilla" and like it better as any of the designs shown here, I can understand why they want to switch it out. "mozilla" is not terribly recognizable and doesn't pop into the eye. Also takes a lot of space on a poster or similar.

oDot 10y ago

True. They should do a modern take of the dinosaur logo

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]