4 ms·

Is it just me, or are these designs terrible and the entire thing reeks of marketers inventing ways to justify their pay checks? The merchandise photos alone ar

• err4nt 10y ago
  If you told me this was student work I would believe you, but its still not top-marks kind of student work. Its like they have never seen a logo before at all and instead are making a moodboard about what they hope the future of the internet should be. Cool art piece, but not a workhorse design you can use as a brand.
• taco_emoji 10y ago
  I agree these are not great... - "Flame" is probably my favorite aesthetically, but "random orange blob" is a pretty weak brand identifier, and the alternate logos seem unrelated unless you see them next to each other. - "Burst" does not scale - at full size it reads "busy eyesore", then scales down to "unprofessional moiré" and finally to "confusing blur" - "Protocol" is probably the strongest, but their own data shows it's unpopular with consumers, probably because the "code" aspect is alienating to non-tech folks - "Dino" is cute but doesn't really communicate anything. I also did not register the main logo as "dinosaur face" until I saw the other designs - it just looked like the "O" was pushed up for no reason.
• whamlastxmas 10y ago
  I also thought they were all quite bad.
• agumonkey 10y ago
  To me it's mostly too much belief in a paradigm, yielding this extensive work from absurd sources. Pleaes Mozilla, redirect these resources into firefox, they've been doing hard work with few funds for years, they deserve even more love.