23 ms·

Personally, I think this is very silly. Firefox has a stronger brand than Mozilla, so they're calling these all "Firefox XX".. But Firefox doesn't have a bran

by e1ven 7y ago

Personally, I think this is very silly. Firefox has a stronger brand than Mozilla, so they're calling these all "Firefox XX".. But Firefox doesn't have a brand as a generic set of utilities, it has a brand as a web browser, and this weakens that. It reminds me of the articles about "Charging for Firefox" that were released earlier this week. If instead they had said "Mozilla is planning to offer a co-branded Mozilla VPN", it would have been clearer, and fewer people would have been confused about if the browser cost money. Putting everything under the Firefox brand dilutes it to meaninglessness.

slim 7y ago
it's confusing only for us. for most people the browser is transparent. they say things like "should I click on google?" meaning the google chrome Icon. generally they will name the browser after whatever service is on the home page. that's the insight they are building upon
- garaetjjte 7y ago
  For non-tech people I'm not really sure that Firefox has a stronger brand than Mozilla. "do you use google or mozilla?" (and it is not very surprising, desktop shortcuts are labeled 'Google Chrome', 'Mozilla Firefox' and they are just looking at first part)
  - cpeterso 7y ago
    Firefox's current Windows Start Menu and macOS shortcuts are just "Firefox" these days.
  - zapzupnz 7y ago
    Your name looks Dutch or maybe Afrikaans. I could imagine that in some places, the 'Mozilla' brand takes precedent for one reason or another. In the majority of the world, it's very clearly Firefox — when people install it, they search for Firefox. Mozilla as the main brand is a relic of the late 90s/early 00s.
Vinnl 7y ago
I guess the common thread is that these services complement your browsing experience, i.e. they'd often be used in conjunction with Firefox - as opposed to, say, Thunderbird. But yeah, the main reason is likely the stronger Firefox brand, and the biggest risk is indeed of weakening that brand. Then again, it could bolster it as well: Firefox Send is a very useful service, and can be used to make people familiar again with Firefox as the relevance of the browser has declined. (The specific issue with the "Charging for Firefox" articles, was, I think, that the root source of that was an interview with a German website, causing details to be lost in translation.)
user17843 7y ago
That's one aspect. The deeper problem though, is that all the other products offered under the firefox brand are revenue failures, and no one really uses them beyond those who already use the firefox browser anyway. And that also explains the move. If they had a great second product, it would stand for itself, no matter the name. This move is a desperate attempt of saving a product that is becoming increasingly meaningless (the browser). - Firefox Monitor is simply a copy of HIBP, so no innovation here. It's a nice-to-have, and maybe would have it's use case if it was directly implemented inside the browser. - Firefox Lockwise doesn't have many use cases, and apparently also not many users. It is hard to know what kind of product it wants to be, or what kind of problem it wants to solve, as it is no competition for the more well known password management tools. - Firefox Send offers a quick way to send some files. Not bad, but already offered by countless competitors. So basically all three products are simply nice-to-have gimmicks, they are no stand-alone products and they certainly don't need a branding. They all have in common that in the current state you can't make any money with them, and Mozilla doesn't monetize them. What they do instead, is use each of the above services to get people to register for a Firefox Account, in an attempt to bring people into the "Firefox ecosystem". And this brings us to the problem with Mozilla. They want to be part of the big players, but they are just a 1000 employee company. They will never establish an ecosystem. They will never profit off the email addresses they collect with Send, Lockwise, and Monitor. They will not be profitable with Pocket. Everything they do to save their brand from going under is, at the moment, a money-losing business. Ironically the only product that is indeed at least a stand-alone product, namely Pocket, is not included in the re-branding.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  The products you mention are not meant to be money-makers. They all contribute to making internet users safe, which is part of Mozilla's mission. - Firefox Monitor reaches more people to minimise the adverse effects of data leaks, and helps internet users to prevent them in the future. Potential further integration with Firefox will help make this usable by more people. - Firefox Lockwise likewise can help getting the benefits of password managers to more people. - Firefox Send offers a quick and private way to send some files. They all also get people into the "Firefox ecosystem", reinforcing each other and giving Mozilla more leverage to help people be part of an open and accessible internet. In the end, all they need to do is remain solvent while doing so - not make money. So far, their search engine deal is sufficient for that. Hopefully they'll find more ways to diversify their income streams, but that should never be the the sole criterium of whether or not to run a service or produce a product.
skrebbel 7y ago
The weird thing is that Google did the same, somehow calling a "HDMI over Wifi" plug after their browser (huh?). I'll never understand these organizations.
- vokep 7y ago
  Are you meaning chromecast?
  - skrebbel 7y ago
    Yes.

by e1ven 7y ago

slim 7y ago

it's confusing only for us. for most people the browser is transparent. they say things like "should I click on google?" meaning the google chrome Icon. generally they will name the browser after whatever service is on the home page. that's the insight they are building upon

garaetjjte 7y ago
For non-tech people I'm not really sure that Firefox has a stronger brand than Mozilla. "do you use google or mozilla?" (and it is not very surprising, desktop shortcuts are labeled 'Google Chrome', 'Mozilla Firefox' and they are just looking at first part)
- cpeterso 7y ago
  Firefox's current Windows Start Menu and macOS shortcuts are just "Firefox" these days.
- zapzupnz 7y ago
  Your name looks Dutch or maybe Afrikaans. I could imagine that in some places, the 'Mozilla' brand takes precedent for one reason or another. In the majority of the world, it's very clearly Firefox — when people install it, they search for Firefox. Mozilla as the main brand is a relic of the late 90s/early 00s.

Vinnl 7y ago

I guess the common thread is that these services complement your browsing experience, i.e. they'd often be used in conjunction with Firefox - as opposed to, say, Thunderbird. But yeah, the main reason is likely the stronger Firefox brand, and the biggest risk is indeed of weakening that brand. Then again, it could bolster it as well: Firefox Send is a very useful service, and can be used to make people familiar again with Firefox as the relevance of the browser has declined. (The specific issue with the "Charging for Firefox" articles, was, I think, that the root source of that was an interview with a German website, causing details to be lost in translation.)

user17843 7y ago

That's one aspect. The deeper problem though, is that all the other products offered under the firefox brand are revenue failures, and no one really uses them beyond those who already use the firefox browser anyway. And that also explains the move. If they had a great second product, it would stand for itself, no matter the name. This move is a desperate attempt of saving a product that is becoming increasingly meaningless (the browser). - Firefox Monitor is simply a copy of HIBP, so no innovation here. It's a nice-to-have, and maybe would have it's use case if it was directly implemented inside the browser. - Firefox Lockwise doesn't have many use cases, and apparently also not many users. It is hard to know what kind of product it wants to be, or what kind of problem it wants to solve, as it is no competition for the more well known password management tools. - Firefox Send offers a quick way to send some files. Not bad, but already offered by countless competitors. So basically all three products are simply nice-to-have gimmicks, they are no stand-alone products and they certainly don't need a branding. They all have in common that in the current state you can't make any money with them, and Mozilla doesn't monetize them. What they do instead, is use each of the above services to get people to register for a Firefox Account, in an attempt to bring people into the "Firefox ecosystem". And this brings us to the problem with Mozilla. They want to be part of the big players, but they are just a 1000 employee company. They will never establish an ecosystem. They will never profit off the email addresses they collect with Send, Lockwise, and Monitor. They will not be profitable with Pocket. Everything they do to save their brand from going under is, at the moment, a money-losing business. Ironically the only product that is indeed at least a stand-alone product, namely Pocket, is not included in the re-branding.

Vinnl 7y ago
The products you mention are not meant to be money-makers. They all contribute to making internet users safe, which is part of Mozilla's mission. - Firefox Monitor reaches more people to minimise the adverse effects of data leaks, and helps internet users to prevent them in the future. Potential further integration with Firefox will help make this usable by more people. - Firefox Lockwise likewise can help getting the benefits of password managers to more people. - Firefox Send offers a quick and private way to send some files. They all also get people into the "Firefox ecosystem", reinforcing each other and giving Mozilla more leverage to help people be part of an open and accessible internet. In the end, all they need to do is remain solvent while doing so - not make money. So far, their search engine deal is sufficient for that. Hopefully they'll find more ways to diversify their income streams, but that should never be the the sole criterium of whether or not to run a service or produce a product.

skrebbel 7y ago

The weird thing is that Google did the same, somehow calling a "HDMI over Wifi" plug after their browser (huh?). I'll never understand these organizations.

vokep 7y ago
Are you meaning chromecast?
- skrebbel 7y ago
  Yes.