8 ms·

What's with the constant desire to rebrand things that work quite well? Also, is this a bird or a dolphin, not quite sure...

b1n 3y ago
Because a successful rebrand (like this one) can onboard new users as well as keep existing ones. i.e. you are unlikely to stop using Thunderbird because of this redesign, but someone who doesn't use it now has an increased chance of starting.
- grt_thr 3y ago
  It's been literally 5 hours. How could anyone possibly tell if this is successful or not?
  - bigyikes 3y ago
    I’ve never seen a more positive response to a logo change. I honestly can’t think of any positive response to a logo change lately. The flattening of Google’s word mark a decade ago is the most recent that comes to mind. I’m sure there are others, but the point is they’re almost never this well-received, imo.
    - grt_thr 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - grt_thr 3y ago
      [flagged]
graypegg 3y ago
Are you arguing just against change? Like things should remain the same if there's no technical reason to change them? 2 decades is quite a long time for something visual to remain the same.
- kyleee 3y ago
  “2 decades is quite a long time for something visual to remain the same.” Which increases my chance of identifying the icon at a glance considerably, since most apps I use have either not existed for 20 years, or have had multiple logo changes in that time. All this change just means I am effectively icon blind in most computing situations, which is a real annoyance and hindrance to productivity
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    You are free to change the icon back locally if it’s really that much of a hit to your productivity.
    - kyleee 3y ago
      I was speaking a bit more generally; this is an additional straw added to an overburdened camel, if you care for an analogy. That is something I could probably do in KDE, which I enjoy for it's configurability. Thank you for the kind suggestion
    - account42 3y ago
      This is not something that most users can reasonably do, especially for mobile.
- grt_thr 3y ago
  The current logo was from 2018.
- account42 3y ago
  Yes. Change for the sake of change is bad.
jonas21 3y ago
In this case, the new Thunderbird logo is in a similar style to the Firefox logo, which makes it clearer that the two apps are from the same developer. This can help with user acquisition since Firefox has better brand recognition and a larger user base than Thunderbird. As an aside, when Thunderbird first launched, Firefox was called Firebird, so their names were similar as well. The browser was renamed to Firefox in 2004 to avoid confusion with the Firebird database.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Should have renamed the client Thunderfox at the same time :)
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    I liked when Firefox was forked as IceWeasel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name
- xp84 3y ago
  > from the same developer Oh, wow. I apparently missed that they were brought back under the Mozilla umbrella three years ago. Cool.
- dizhn 3y ago
  We should then be expecting K9Mail's logo to change soon.
grt_thr 3y ago
[flagged]
joegibbs 3y ago
It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project, that it has modern features that they expect, that it works on the latest operating system that they might have installed, etc. It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time.
- yawaramin 3y ago
  It's weird that actual current maintenance, actual existence of modern features, and actual cross-platform portability doesn't communicate that, but a new logo does.
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    It’s not that weird.
  - pmontra 3y ago
    People work that way. We have several ways to visually communicate that we are current with the general state of the world and we're not slipping away. Logos are one of them for corporations and projects in general.
  - asutekku 3y ago
    But these are not necessarily visible for the end-user and guess what, this is what an end-user notices, not if the service is using some of the new state-of-the-art encryption.
  - account42 3y ago
    Your taking an argument commonly parroted by marketing designers who need to justify their jobs and assume that people actually work that way.
- KronisLV 3y ago
  > It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time. I feel like many here might disagree that this should be the case, even if realistically it kind of is for most people. To that end, I'm curious whether there are any projects out there that have decided that this is "silly" and instead are alive and doing well, without caring about UI and aesthetics that much, focusing on UX more instead. I think the logo and look of something like Audacity, Handbrake, ManicTime or KeePass comes to mind.

b1n 3y ago

Because a successful rebrand (like this one) can onboard new users as well as keep existing ones. i.e. you are unlikely to stop using Thunderbird because of this redesign, but someone who doesn't use it now has an increased chance of starting.

grt_thr 3y ago
It's been literally 5 hours. How could anyone possibly tell if this is successful or not?
- bigyikes 3y ago
  I’ve never seen a more positive response to a logo change. I honestly can’t think of any positive response to a logo change lately. The flattening of Google’s word mark a decade ago is the most recent that comes to mind. I’m sure there are others, but the point is they’re almost never this well-received, imo.
  - grt_thr 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - grt_thr 3y ago
    [flagged]

graypegg 3y ago

Are you arguing just against change? Like things should remain the same if there's no technical reason to change them? 2 decades is quite a long time for something visual to remain the same.

kyleee 3y ago
“2 decades is quite a long time for something visual to remain the same.” Which increases my chance of identifying the icon at a glance considerably, since most apps I use have either not existed for 20 years, or have had multiple logo changes in that time. All this change just means I am effectively icon blind in most computing situations, which is a real annoyance and hindrance to productivity
- Gigachad 3y ago
  You are free to change the icon back locally if it’s really that much of a hit to your productivity.
  - kyleee 3y ago
    I was speaking a bit more generally; this is an additional straw added to an overburdened camel, if you care for an analogy. That is something I could probably do in KDE, which I enjoy for it's configurability. Thank you for the kind suggestion
  - account42 3y ago
    This is not something that most users can reasonably do, especially for mobile.
grt_thr 3y ago
The current logo was from 2018.
account42 3y ago
Yes. Change for the sake of change is bad.

jonas21 3y ago

In this case, the new Thunderbird logo is in a similar style to the Firefox logo, which makes it clearer that the two apps are from the same developer. This can help with user acquisition since Firefox has better brand recognition and a larger user base than Thunderbird. As an aside, when Thunderbird first launched, Firefox was called Firebird, so their names were similar as well. The browser was renamed to Firefox in 2004 to avoid confusion with the Firebird database.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vlovich123 3y ago
Should have renamed the client Thunderfox at the same time :)
- fsckboy 3y ago
  I liked when Firefox was forked as IceWeasel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#Origins_of_the_name
xp84 3y ago
> from the same developer Oh, wow. I apparently missed that they were brought back under the Mozilla umbrella three years ago. Cool.
dizhn 3y ago
We should then be expecting K9Mail's logo to change soon.

grt_thr 3y ago

[flagged]

joegibbs 3y ago

It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project, that it has modern features that they expect, that it works on the latest operating system that they might have installed, etc. It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time.

yawaramin 3y ago
It's weird that actual current maintenance, actual existence of modern features, and actual cross-platform portability doesn't communicate that, but a new logo does.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  It’s not that weird.
- pmontra 3y ago
  People work that way. We have several ways to visually communicate that we are current with the general state of the world and we're not slipping away. Logos are one of them for corporations and projects in general.
- asutekku 3y ago
  But these are not necessarily visible for the end-user and guess what, this is what an end-user notices, not if the service is using some of the new state-of-the-art encryption.
- account42 3y ago
  Your taking an argument commonly parroted by marketing designers who need to justify their jobs and assume that people actually work that way.
KronisLV 3y ago
> It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time. I feel like many here might disagree that this should be the case, even if realistically it kind of is for most people. To that end, I'm curious whether there are any projects out there that have decided that this is "silly" and instead are alive and doing well, without caring about UI and aesthetics that much, focusing on UX more instead. I think the logo and look of something like Audacity, Handbrake, ManicTime or KeePass comes to mind.