What Do You Think of Mozilla's New Branding? (itsfoss.com) 97
As a "global crew of activists, technologists and builders," Mozilla open-sourced Firefox more than 25 years ago, notes a new blog post — and their president says Mozilla's mission is the same today: "build and support technology in the public interest, and spark more innovation, more competition and more choice online along the way."
But "Even though we've been at the forefront of privacy and open source, people weren't getting the full picture of what we do. We were missing opportunities to connect with both new and existing users." So this week the company announced a branding refresh, "making sure people know Mozilla for its broader impact, as well as Firefox."
The open-source blog It's FOSS writes: Meant to symbolize their activist spirit, the new brand identity of Mozilla involves a custom semi-slab typeface that spells Mozilla, followed by a flag that was taken from the M of their name. Mozilla points out that this is not just a rebranding, but something that will lay the foundation for the next 25 years, helping them promote the ideals of privacy and open source.
Mozilla teamed up with the design agency used by major brands like Uber and Burger King, for a strategy they say will "embody our role as a leader in digital rights and innovation, putting people over profits through privacy-preserving products, open-source developer tools, and community-building efforts..." We back people and projects that move technology, the internet and AI in the right direction. In a time of privacy breaches, AI challenges and misinformation, this transformation is all about rallying people to take back control of their time, individual expression, privacy, community and sense of wonder... [T]he new brand empowers people to speak up, come together and build a happier, healthier internet — one where we can all shape how our lives, online and off, unfold...
- The flag symbol highlights our activist spirit, signifying a commitment to 'Reclaim the Internet.' A symbol of belief, peace, unity, pride, celebration and team spirit — built from the 'M' for Mozilla and a pixel that is conveniently displaced to reveal a wink to its iconic Tyrannosaurus rex symbol designed by Shepard Fairey. The flag can transform into a more literal interpretation as its new mascot in ASCII art style, and serve as a rallying cry for our cause...
- The custom typefaces are bespoke and an evolution of its Mozilla slab serif today. It stands out in a sea of tech sans. The new interpretation is more innovative and built for its tech platforms. The sans brings character to something that was once hard working but generic. These fonts are interchangeable and allow for a greater degree of expression across its brand experience, connecting everything together.
The blog post at It's FOSS ends with a "trip down memory lane" — showing Mozilla's two previous logos. "I will be honest, I liked the Dino better," they write "the 2024 logo is a nice mix of a custom typeface and a flag, which looks really neat in my opinion."
But "Even though we've been at the forefront of privacy and open source, people weren't getting the full picture of what we do. We were missing opportunities to connect with both new and existing users." So this week the company announced a branding refresh, "making sure people know Mozilla for its broader impact, as well as Firefox."
The open-source blog It's FOSS writes: Meant to symbolize their activist spirit, the new brand identity of Mozilla involves a custom semi-slab typeface that spells Mozilla, followed by a flag that was taken from the M of their name. Mozilla points out that this is not just a rebranding, but something that will lay the foundation for the next 25 years, helping them promote the ideals of privacy and open source.
Mozilla teamed up with the design agency used by major brands like Uber and Burger King, for a strategy they say will "embody our role as a leader in digital rights and innovation, putting people over profits through privacy-preserving products, open-source developer tools, and community-building efforts..." We back people and projects that move technology, the internet and AI in the right direction. In a time of privacy breaches, AI challenges and misinformation, this transformation is all about rallying people to take back control of their time, individual expression, privacy, community and sense of wonder... [T]he new brand empowers people to speak up, come together and build a happier, healthier internet — one where we can all shape how our lives, online and off, unfold...
- The flag symbol highlights our activist spirit, signifying a commitment to 'Reclaim the Internet.' A symbol of belief, peace, unity, pride, celebration and team spirit — built from the 'M' for Mozilla and a pixel that is conveniently displaced to reveal a wink to its iconic Tyrannosaurus rex symbol designed by Shepard Fairey. The flag can transform into a more literal interpretation as its new mascot in ASCII art style, and serve as a rallying cry for our cause...
- The custom typefaces are bespoke and an evolution of its Mozilla slab serif today. It stands out in a sea of tech sans. The new interpretation is more innovative and built for its tech platforms. The sans brings character to something that was once hard working but generic. These fonts are interchangeable and allow for a greater degree of expression across its brand experience, connecting everything together.
The blog post at It's FOSS ends with a "trip down memory lane" — showing Mozilla's two previous logos. "I will be honest, I liked the Dino better," they write "the 2024 logo is a nice mix of a custom typeface and a flag, which looks really neat in my opinion."
Still Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Still Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I don't think anyone who knew Mozilla, knew it as a activist firm. It was a non profit technology organization, given $500 million a year by google. The activists came in when they saw all that money. Now the people who would have supported them are going to think hard about whether supporting an organization that isn't doing what it was started and known for is a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Rebranding? We don't need no stinkin' rebranding! (Score:1)
Mod parent funny.
Regarding the story: I hadn't noticed. If people don't notice a rebranding, then maybe it didn't work?
I continue to use Firefox as my primary browser, but my reasons remain largely negative. As in I dislike the companies that are pushing alternative browsers. Especially the ones that promise various kinds of incentives for using their browser. TANSTAAFL and they want control of my browser as some kind of choke point. At least Mozilla is trying to be charitable?
Personal anecdote: Recently pi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This is from the same people who think the UI needs radical changes in every minor version change.
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're caught up in branding and explaining the fabulousness of said branding to your audience, you're by definition on the wrong track.
Fix and improve your core products instead. We've been waiting on grouped tabs on FF mobile for years. Hello?
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
a) have been spent on one more developer
And marketing. You can have 10,000 developers. If you can't market your product, you won't get anywhere with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your fundamental assumption is that goal is improving the product, rather than moving money to pet projects of CEO and close circle of activist friends.
I would argue this fundamental assumption should not be such, but an actual first question before the subject you're talking about can be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Looks like the leadership there is still crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do any of those those Firefox-derived browsers let you "open" downloads directly from the "download file" prompt? That and not having to confirm "dangerous" downloads were the simple but "killer" features that sent me to Vivaldi some years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you're caught up in branding and explaining the fabulousness of said branding to your audience, you're by definition on the wrong track.
Which audience are you talking about? CEOs often talk about and explain their branding extensively. Literally no company just rebrands and shuts up. Rebranding is literally a major business decision that needs to be justified to stakeholders.
The only difference is that they normally don't get featured on Slashdot and therefore presumably you don't normally hear about it. But *everyone* does it.
We've been waiting on grouped tabs on FF mobile for years.
Who is we? Do you mean you? Most people don't group tabs, they rarely have enough open to give a crap. If you're wa
Non-profits spending $ for rebranding (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a significant change in mission, strikes me as fiscal mis-management.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody said they lost 83% of their income.
So they hire an expensive company to make a logo that looks like it was made by Jean-Ralphio in MSPaint and did a bunch of layoffs?
That Form 990 should be revelatory.
Bla, bla, bla (Score:1)
Horrible (Score:2)
WHO CARES. (Score:2)
eom
Horrible (Score:4, Insightful)
Masturbatory delusion (Score:3)
In what way does one pixel represent an entire dinosaur? You're a brilliant artist or masturbating to the delusion of your own importance.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously? Go look at the logo again. Keep looking until you see the dinosaur. It's not a puzzle.
... a wink to it's iconic Tyrannosaurus rex symbol ...
Do you get it now? They said the pixel was a wink to their old dinosaur logo. A wink to it.
Nothing? Just keep looking. You'll see it eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I came here to say something similar. If you look at the negative space of the flag along with the dot (wink) you can see a suggestion of the dinosaur head. It's subtle, but so are the arrow symbol in the FedEx logo and a few others.
As long as the new logo is accompanied with a renewed push to fix the things the users want instead of trying to regain the "setting new standards" level of changes, I'm happy to wait to see if they actually get back to innovating useful features.
Just the flag please (Score:2)
Reading through the blog link and looking at the 2017 version, I have to say this is better - though as the blog says not as good as the dinosaur.
Looking at teh new one, I kind of like teh flag but not with the text.
However! Since retro stuff is always popular, why not back to the dinosaur? Especially in an age where once again Godzilla is really popular. Lean into the roots!
Re: (Score:3)
Godzilla is the problem, Toho can get lawsuit-happy. https://archive.is/uV8FP [archive.is]
Re: (Score:1)
Great point, I had not considered that angle.
I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Mozilla should focus on making an awesome browser and not on stupid shit like this.
Re:I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
>"I think that Mozilla should focus on making an awesome browser"
They DO make an awesome browser. Generally, it performs as good as anything else and yet has more user control, is more open, and has more focus on user privacy. It could be more awesome, of course, but so can everything.
>"and not on stupid shit like this."
Agreed
Re: I think... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) No it isn't, and it is a stupid statement to make. I have hundreds of users using it every day and it serves us very well. It performs very well, is very configurable (much more than the alternatives (albeit not as much as it used to be), very manageable, very up-to-date on security, respects privacy more than most, and quite stable.
2) There are only three real browsers, Firefox, Chrom*, and Safari, and Safari is far closer to Chrom*, but only runs on Apple. So for the vast majority of people, there are only two browsers. Just because something has an "issue" in Firefox doesn't make it Firefox's fault. It might be, or it might just be a difference in interpretation. It might also be your "issue" isn't something based on actual standards. Sites coded to actual standards typically work fine on any modern browser. But as we get closer to reliving the nightmare of a monobrowser world (perhaps you weren't into this stuff in the late 90's/00's), things are bound to get worse for anyone/thing out of Google's "defacto" control.
PS: Any site that says "works best in Chrome" or "we recommend Chrome" can be translated as "we don't code to actual standards" and/or "we don't care about users" and/or "we are too lazy to do proper development" and deserves immediate user complaints (of which I am happy to provide, and encourage others to do the same).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Safari runs on Windows, from 7 to 11. Oh ... 7 eleven ... what a coincident
Just does not run on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Safari runs on Windows, from 7 to 11. Just does not run on Android."
Current Safari does NOT run on MS-Windows of any version. It does not run on Linux. It does not run on Android.
Like I said, it is Apple-only.
Re: (Score:3)
"Safari for Windows is no longer supported or updated by Apple, with the last version released in 2012, making it a security risk. It is recommended to use alternative browsers like Firefox or Chrome for better security and performance"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Safari for Windows was discontinued after version 5.1.7 released in 2010.[191][192] "
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
Using a browser from 12 to 14 YEARS ago would be absolutely insane. There is zero value in claiming it is not an Apple-only
Re: (Score:3)
What issue would that be? Why keep that to yourself?
Re:I think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parts of Firefox are still broken or in bed if modernising though. I wish they would just pump resources into that, and become more agile. No more waiting years for bugs to get fixed, no more half baked UIn decisions that get baked in for a decade.
The whole way they handle user feedback is poor, and their last attempt to fix it was abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree they need to work on bug fixes and user engagement more. Wasting money on a stupid logo is, well, stupid.
Re:I think... (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole way they handle user feedback is poor...
Yeah, that can happen when you arbitrarily decide that the word "handle" and the word "ignore" are synonymous. That policy probably came close on the heels of the one that gave the esthetic whims of their UI designers precedence over the stated desires and needs of their users.
Re: (Score:2)
They also own an ad tech company and pushed ad tracking by default on Firefox users.
Their userbase consists of die-hard Firefox users at this point - not exactly the kind of people you want to foist your new and untested ad trackers onto.
The problem with firefox is they assumed they could do no wrong. So they kept breaking everything, and in that kept driving users away. Now, maybe those changes were necessary and required, but could've been done with more user friendliness in mind and less "screw you and y
Re:I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
>"They also own an ad tech company"
Compared to what? Google? They *ARE* an ad company.
>"and pushed ad tracking by default on Firefox users."
They turned on setting on by default, and told people they were doing it, and posted information about what they were doing and why, and it is a single click to turn it off. As compared to what? Google playing underhanded stuff constantly to thwart blocking ads and improving privacy.
>"So they kept breaking everything" "screw you and your extensions they're all gone now"
Nope. They redid their brower core to Quantum, which was necessary to make use of multithreading and there was SOME necessary breakage that came from it. They did limit exposure of UI elements to addons, with the [valid] excuse of security and performance concerns. Where they dropped the ball is that they said they would expose more of the UI later once things settled, and that has been too slow to roll out. Within short order, almost all the important extensions were back and alive. Again, they HAD to make some changes, and it was worth it because performance improved dramatically.
>"Work on the browser and fix those issues"
On this we agree. We don't need new logos or cute coding contests. Firefox (and its few offshoots) is the ONLY thing left preventing an extremely dangerous monoculture on the majority of platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
They redid their brower core to Quantum, which was necessary to make use of multithreading and there was SOME necessary breakage that came from it.
I am absolutely certain it is merely coincidence that the things that were broken were related to user control over information gathering related functions such as the ability to prevent the browser from reaching out to various network objects.
It makes total sense and is not underhanded at all. No sirree Bob.
Re:I think... (Score:4, Insightful)
firefox has been a serious and fundamental contributor to web standards, they did massive work that no one would do at a time it was really necessary. then somehow they lost any and all sense of purpose.
now they're technically irrelevant, privacy activists paying for rebel branding to stay relevant with money made by selling user's privacy to google. it's just sad.
Re: (Score:3)
They're more important now than ever before. Instead of bitching and moaning about non-issues, try supporting them.
Re: I think... (Score:1)
They are spending money on non issues.
They do not need a new logo. The foxy one is fine and recognizable.
Where they need to spend money is refactoring code, it's not sexy but Firefox has a maintainability problem and that's how you fix it.
Mobile Firefox on Android is a memory sieve, leaky AF. I do not want it to have a new logo, I want it to not leak memory so I don't have to restart it multiple times a day if I am using JavaScript heavy sites.
Re: (Score:3)
They do not need a new logo. The foxy one is fine and recognizable.
Mozilla is not Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should just lean into Firefox.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that Mozilla should focus on making an awesome browser
You're in luck! They make the finest open source browser on the market.
/bitter former Firefox supporter
Because they changed some minor interface element in response to user feedback or because they removed a feature no one used but you? Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that Mozilla should focus on making an awesome browser and not on stupid shit like this.
No one working on the browser was doing this. Even individual people can multitask, but since they literally outsourced this to someone else, no resources were divested from the browser. No need to be bitter.
Re: (Score:2)
No money was spent on this? Money is a resource, you know?
Hate it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a dinosaur. It's also a flag. Also, who cares? It's not like the Mozilla branding means anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the pharmaceutical companies (Score:2)
Some quotes from above comments:
"When you're caught up in branding and explaining the fabulousness of said branding to your audience, you're by definition on the wrong track."
"A sans serif font with serifs looks truly ugly."
"It's just horrible. Overly complicated and doesn't really convey anything. It's just ugly. Time wasted, money waster."
All so true.
It is ugly. It makes no sense, It does not convey any clear idea. What does the flag have to do with anything?
Had you not said "it's a flag", I thought it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get your joke but I have no mod points.
Too bad for donors (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad for donors that gave to Mozilla with the hope Firefox will get better.
Instead, that money went to an agency that delivered ASCII art.
I think we need an alternative support body for Firefox.
Re: (Score:1)
They've been spending a tiny percentage on the Firefox browser for years.
https://lunduke.locals.com/pos... [locals.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"It gets wild" says the article. So wild that I wanted to verify some of the claims. Most of them are based on financial report available from mozilla.net. The question may seem stupid, but Mozilla website is mozilla.org, how can I know the two are related?
Note that I do not suspect the information is fake. It is just that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences.
Does the Job (Score:3)
Interesting logo (Score:2)
They didn't have anything higher priority to spend money on?
Reminds me of Melissa Mayer and Yahoo (Score:5, Funny)
As CEO, she devoted a large amount of her time focused on personally making meaningless design tweaks to the logo... as if the logo was at the root of the company's many problems.
Anyone know if Mozilla hired Mayer as a consultant for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Marissa, not Melissa.
Re:Reminds me of [Marissa Meyer] and Yahoo (Score:1)
And Meyer, not Mayer.
So why didn't your correct the Subject?
Still deserved the Funny mod. And perhaps you were FPed?
Fix the UI instead. (Score:4, Insightful)
The branding has never been an issue. It's your new UI that scares people away. It's unbearable. Remove Proton UI and it's horrible tabs and some users may give you a second chance.
Re:Fix the UI instead. (Score:5, Informative)
>The branding has never been an issue. It's your new UI that scares people away. It's unbearable."
It is unbearable to us older users, many newer users like it. But I, like you, don't like it, and would rather have a choice. But the alternative, Chrom*, is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. So saying it scared people away is kinda silly: "WAAAAH, they changed the UI to look like Chrom* so I am going to use Chrom* instead and compromise standards and privacy, that will teach them."
It *did* annoy a lot of their traditional user base, for sure. But at least you CAN undo much of that in Firefox (which you cannot do in Chrom*) using https://www.userchrome.org/ [userchrome.org] My favorite is https://github.com/Aris-t2/Cus... [github.com] which makes it fairly easy and with lots of functionality for geeks. With that and some other settings, I have traditional tabs, tabs on bottom, tamed the URL bar, turned back on proper menus, wide scrollbars with proper arrows and page up/down, better highlighting, removal of buttons I don't use, etc).
Mozilla made the mistake of thinking that looking more like Chrom* was a feature instead of a fault. At this point I don't expect them to backtrack much, especially because it could actually alienate people COMING from Chrom*, but it would be nice if they put more effort into allowing WebExtensions to modify the UI more, again (or building in more traditional UI option choices).
Re: (Score:2)
It's your new UI that scares people away.
It literally doesn't. It's virtually interchangeable with most UIs out there, and completely forgettable.
Firefox still hasn't fix the spaces in url bug (Score:3)
They are clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
mozilla needs another phoenix moment. (Score:1)
The leadership is useless, has been for ages. I knew it was over the second they ousted Brendan Eich for woke reasons.
The best thing for mozilla would be to lose all its google funding. The current leadership will jump ship, and then if anything worthwhile is left, the broader open-source community can take ownership. if not, so be it.
stated as former contributor and netscape employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They replaced a software engineer and creator of things with parasites and leeches. That's why the product suffers. Brave, on the other hand, has been innovating, adding great features regularly, especially on mobile.
A bird (Score:2)
Remember old-fashioned keys? (Score:3)
The pixelated-looking portion of the logo reminds me of the business end of old-fashioned keys similar to this one: https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com] OTOH, it could be a tattered flag, the head of a duck, or... I KNOW! It looks like a sideways pile of money on fire!
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that for the sake of consistency they wanted their new logo to be as confusing and purposeless as their recent UI "innovations" have been.
What a waste (Score:1)
Gold old logo (Score:1)
After all these years, Slashdot still show the old dinosaur logos on submissions related to Mozilla. I am not complaining though.
Marketeers love this stuff (Score:2)
It's a flag / dinosaur... (Score:2)
Whiners (Score:3)
Holy shit, the vast majority of you guys are just fucking whiners.
Whatever the case.. (Score:2)
Activists (Score:2)
The strange thing is they do not seem to realize most people do not like activists. Especially in today's very polarized climate. They must live in some sort of bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming everyone is like you. A LOT of people who aren't you are on activists' side. Those people aren't falling for the fear and division mongering you're falling for.
smarten up, dummy.
Adventure on 2600 (Score:2)
They copied the dragon from Adventure on the Atari 2600.