5 ms·

At this point, Mozilla's biggest asset is the Firefox brand. Seems unwise to go with a bland, generic redesign... especially one that's a blatant rip off of Git

At this point, Mozilla's biggest asset is the Firefox brand. Seems unwise to go with a bland, generic redesign... especially one that's a blatant rip off of GitLab. It also seems like they're going to have two "main logos"? And incredibly different logos for each flavor of Firefox? I used to work at Mozilla, and it was already confusing enough to explain Mozilla vs Firefox to the average person. Their current userbase is mostly less-tech-savvy people, and I can't imagine changing the icon is going to go well for Firefox. Much like how it took Firefox a decade to convince people "The Internet" wasn't just IE's "e" logo that came preinstalled, changing their icon is going to hurt way more than it helps.

bobthepanda 8y ago
It looks like they're trying to leverage the Firefox for the main logo for Mozilla, which is the rather disconnected `moz://la`. The logos aren't very impressive, but most people will just see the Firefox Quantum logo, and that looks largely the same, if bland and uninspired.
- sandov 8y ago
  Some of the most recognizable logos are bland and uninspired.
- sdinsn 8y ago
  The "masterbrand" icon is not replacing Mozilla's logo. Mozilla's logo is not changing.
  - imron 8y ago
    What a pity.
- Animats 8y ago
  No, they're not very good. But getting rid of "moz://la" would be a win. This is the original Mozilla logo, from the Netscape era.[1] That Godzilla takeoff was worse. [1] https://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/prof/iprogrammer/Mozilla/Mozilla.jpg https://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/prof/iprogramme...
Alex3917 8y ago
> especially one that's a blatant rip off of GitLab Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the GitLab logo, and immediately thought MetaMask.
- ohmatt 8y ago
  I'd never seen that one before. It looks like GitLab made a minimalist version of MetaMask's logo, and then Firefox made a "modern" version of that. Obviously that's not what happened. I assume. I think foxes just make for really cool logos.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > I think foxes just make for really cool logos. Which is what makes it weird, since a firefox is a type of panda.
    - tranchms 8y ago
      Red Panda! I had no idea: “Red pandas were once thought to be closely related to the giant panda, but genetics has shown they are more closely allied with the raccoon and weasel families. They are secretive and gentle creatures, spending most of the day sleeping curled up with their tail wrapped around their head.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Red_Panda http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Red_Panda
    - peanutz454 8y ago
      Firefox is not a type of Panda. The Red Panda (AKA Firefox) is an animal in a family of its own (not fox or cat or raccoon). The Panda is a bear. The Firefox logo depicts a fox not the Red Panda (but everyone knows that). The project was supposed to be called Firebird, but another open source project had already taken up that name.
  - narkee 8y ago
    I think GitLab has been around a lot longer than MetaMask, so probably the other way around if anything.
- 8y ago
ohmatt 8y ago
I actually really like the "masterband" fox icon they have, but as you pointed out, it's almost exactly the GitLab logo. Granted, I like the Mozilla version better here. I think the added angles underneath make it more appealing. Maybe GitLab should just borrow the idea before Mozilla finalizes it... I mean, not really, but it would be pretty great if they did.
- petepete 8y ago
  Also, see HappyFox https://www.happyfox.com https://www.happyfox.com
sandov 8y ago
>Their current userbase is mostly less-tech-savvy people Really? I thought it was the complete opposite, as it's the free software browser (chromium/chrome aren't really free in spirit because they are too closely related to Google), and the standard browser on Linux.
- superkuh 8y ago
  Weather or not it is true Mozilla only cares about the less-tech-savvy userbase now. Just look at what they've done with Firefox instead of what they say.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    It’s fast and works well?
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      Except it isn't and it doesn't. Extensions are still limited in countless little ways many months after the Quantum release. Every one of them makes the browser a bit worse than it was before. The claims about making extensions safer and more reliable have proven to be optimistic, with a string of problems around both instability and privacy since the big change. More generally, I come across sites that don't work properly with Firefox several times a week these days. Chrome is the new "This site displays best at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator" and Firefox's market share has fallen so low that a lot of web developers simply don't test with it properly any more. Maybe this isn't Mozilla's fault, but realistically it is still their problem. As for speed, while some people seem to find Quantum a big improvement in speed, it hasn't made Firefox noticeably faster than other major browsers for most day-to-day use. I want to like Firefox. It was my primary browser for years, thanks to a combination of flexibility through add-ons, being relatively good for privacy and security, and having relatively good developer tools (all of these being somewhat related). But as someone who uses all the major browsers professionally, I can only assume that the leadership at Mozilla have chosen a strategy of trying to out-Chrome Chrome, and that is going about as well as anyone more objective might expect while still giving up almost everything that was a natural strength for Firefox before.
profalseidol 8y ago
So what is Mozilla vs Firefox? I think I saw a Mozilla browser when I was playing around linux distros.
- sciurus 8y ago
  Firefox is a browser created by Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Mozilla is an organisation that creates the browser Firefox. However, it used to create the Mozilla Suite [1], a set of applications that included e.g. a browser and an email client, which evolved into Firefox and Thunderbird respectively. SeaMonkey is somewhat of a successor to the Mozilla Suite [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Application_Suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Application_Suite [2] https://www.seamonkey-project.org/ https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
ilikehurdles 8y ago
Google blasts its chrome ads on the most visited site on the planet purporting to be very fast. Firefox happens to be a default browser for many linux distributions. Which one do you think attracts the less tech savvy people?
- lifthrasiir 8y ago
  But solely being a web browser targeted to tech-savvy people is also a sure way to die. The modern browser engine is simply too complex to exist without enomorous user base and Firefox user population is arguably around the threshold.
earenndil 8y ago
> it was already confusing enough to explain Mozilla vs Firefox to the average person Moreso than explaining google vs chrome, or ms vs edge/ie?
- slazaro 8y ago
  Most people see that Google does other things besides Chrome (the search engine, youtube, android, etc.), and that Microsoft does other things besides Edge/IE (Windows, come on). Ask anybody what Mozilla does besides Firefox. Most people have no idea.
jazoom 8y ago
Wow. Even though you mentioned it I was still surprised at how much it reminded me of GitLab's logo. Even the colours are similar. That's not cool.

bobthepanda 8y ago

It looks like they're trying to leverage the Firefox for the main logo for Mozilla, which is the rather disconnected `moz://la`. The logos aren't very impressive, but most people will just see the Firefox Quantum logo, and that looks largely the same, if bland and uninspired.

sandov 8y ago
Some of the most recognizable logos are bland and uninspired.
sdinsn 8y ago
The "masterbrand" icon is not replacing Mozilla's logo. Mozilla's logo is not changing.
- imron 8y ago
  What a pity.
Animats 8y ago
No, they're not very good. But getting rid of "moz://la" would be a win. This is the original Mozilla logo, from the Netscape era.[1] That Godzilla takeoff was worse. [1] https://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/prof/iprogrammer/Mozilla/Mozilla.jpg https://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/prof/iprogramme...

Alex3917 8y ago

> especially one that's a blatant rip off of GitLab Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the GitLab logo, and immediately thought MetaMask.

ohmatt 8y ago
I'd never seen that one before. It looks like GitLab made a minimalist version of MetaMask's logo, and then Firefox made a "modern" version of that. Obviously that's not what happened. I assume. I think foxes just make for really cool logos.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > I think foxes just make for really cool logos. Which is what makes it weird, since a firefox is a type of panda.
  - tranchms 8y ago
    Red Panda! I had no idea: “Red pandas were once thought to be closely related to the giant panda, but genetics has shown they are more closely allied with the raccoon and weasel families. They are secretive and gentle creatures, spending most of the day sleeping curled up with their tail wrapped around their head.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Red_Panda http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Red_Panda
  - peanutz454 8y ago
    Firefox is not a type of Panda. The Red Panda (AKA Firefox) is an animal in a family of its own (not fox or cat or raccoon). The Panda is a bear. The Firefox logo depicts a fox not the Red Panda (but everyone knows that). The project was supposed to be called Firebird, but another open source project had already taken up that name.
- narkee 8y ago
  I think GitLab has been around a lot longer than MetaMask, so probably the other way around if anything.
8y ago

ohmatt 8y ago

I actually really like the "masterband" fox icon they have, but as you pointed out, it's almost exactly the GitLab logo. Granted, I like the Mozilla version better here. I think the added angles underneath make it more appealing. Maybe GitLab should just borrow the idea before Mozilla finalizes it... I mean, not really, but it would be pretty great if they did.

petepete 8y ago
Also, see HappyFox https://www.happyfox.com https://www.happyfox.com

sandov 8y ago

>Their current userbase is mostly less-tech-savvy people Really? I thought it was the complete opposite, as it's the free software browser (chromium/chrome aren't really free in spirit because they are too closely related to Google), and the standard browser on Linux.

superkuh 8y ago
Weather or not it is true Mozilla only cares about the less-tech-savvy userbase now. Just look at what they've done with Firefox instead of what they say.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  It’s fast and works well?
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Except it isn't and it doesn't. Extensions are still limited in countless little ways many months after the Quantum release. Every one of them makes the browser a bit worse than it was before. The claims about making extensions safer and more reliable have proven to be optimistic, with a string of problems around both instability and privacy since the big change. More generally, I come across sites that don't work properly with Firefox several times a week these days. Chrome is the new "This site displays best at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator" and Firefox's market share has fallen so low that a lot of web developers simply don't test with it properly any more. Maybe this isn't Mozilla's fault, but realistically it is still their problem. As for speed, while some people seem to find Quantum a big improvement in speed, it hasn't made Firefox noticeably faster than other major browsers for most day-to-day use. I want to like Firefox. It was my primary browser for years, thanks to a combination of flexibility through add-ons, being relatively good for privacy and security, and having relatively good developer tools (all of these being somewhat related). But as someone who uses all the major browsers professionally, I can only assume that the leadership at Mozilla have chosen a strategy of trying to out-Chrome Chrome, and that is going about as well as anyone more objective might expect while still giving up almost everything that was a natural strength for Firefox before.

profalseidol 8y ago

So what is Mozilla vs Firefox? I think I saw a Mozilla browser when I was playing around linux distros.

sciurus 8y ago
Firefox is a browser created by Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla
Vinnl 8y ago
Mozilla is an organisation that creates the browser Firefox. However, it used to create the Mozilla Suite [1], a set of applications that included e.g. a browser and an email client, which evolved into Firefox and Thunderbird respectively. SeaMonkey is somewhat of a successor to the Mozilla Suite [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Application_Suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Application_Suite [2] https://www.seamonkey-project.org/ https://www.seamonkey-project.org/

ilikehurdles 8y ago

Google blasts its chrome ads on the most visited site on the planet purporting to be very fast. Firefox happens to be a default browser for many linux distributions. Which one do you think attracts the less tech savvy people?

lifthrasiir 8y ago
But solely being a web browser targeted to tech-savvy people is also a sure way to die. The modern browser engine is simply too complex to exist without enomorous user base and Firefox user population is arguably around the threshold.

earenndil 8y ago

> it was already confusing enough to explain Mozilla vs Firefox to the average person Moreso than explaining google vs chrome, or ms vs edge/ie?

slazaro 8y ago
Most people see that Google does other things besides Chrome (the search engine, youtube, android, etc.), and that Microsoft does other things besides Edge/IE (Windows, come on). Ask anybody what Mozilla does besides Firefox. Most people have no idea.

jazoom 8y ago

Wow. Even though you mentioned it I was still surprised at how much it reminded me of GitLab's logo. Even the colours are similar. That's not cool.