
New Mozilla logo concepts - jasoncartwright
https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/
======
bobajeff
Not a single one of them looks better than the one they already have and at
least half of them are awful. Besides the name makes way more sense with the
dinosaur logo.

~~~
nothis
What's their current logo? Lowercase "mozilla"? That dinosaur isn't there
anymore, is it?

I rather like the Moz://a logo. Beyond geeky, beyond clever. Maybe _too_
clever, I dunno.

~~~
raimue
The :// thing would be too close to the new curl logo, introduced only a few
months ago: [https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-
logo/](https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/27/a-new-curl-logo/)

~~~
anexprogrammer
It's funny, but such a similar concept as used in the Curl logo looks really
professional. I'd not seen their new logo before. The typeface, the hint to
pcb tracks, makes it work really well. I like it a lot!

So I went back for a longer, closer, look. I dug into every logo's individual
page. The FB mockups reveal much.

Moz:// is the best of a horrible bunch, but apart from making me think
strongly of another web brand, it's bland. They're all expressed as though
someone just got their hands on MS Publisher.

The connector, utterly meaningless and indecipherable. Particularly with the
colour choices, makes me think of another Google app icon, like Picasa.
Reminds me of BA's universally derided 1990s £50m tail art redesign (It didn't
last long).

Open button is some random control on a Chinese media player. Another
"universal" icon rather than logo.

Of the rest they have no redeeming features, to my eyes, whatsoever.

------
cdibona
If you look on the mozilla site they've gone to great lengths to remove the
dino branding already, which is a shame, as who didn't like the dino guy?

That said, who cares about mozilla's logo? If this was the firefox logo,
that'd matter a bit more, but in the end, this is just a bunch of costly big
company bs that matters very little.

~~~
djsumdog
Oh wow. Yea, I couldn't find it anywhere on their site. I had to go to their
Wikipedia page.

I really like the dino. I remember the early Mozilla releases based on
Netscape 6 and how it had the dino-logo in that fading pattern for page loads.

Come to think of it...I totally forgot we lost the page loading icon ages ago.
It's a part of the tab icon now. Oh nostalgia:

[https://media.giphy.com/media/anjRJ4nv9WJzO/giphy.gif](https://media.giphy.com/media/anjRJ4nv9WJzO/giphy.gif)

------
anexprogrammer
"There are no duds in the mix"

More like they're all duds. Terrible, unless it was just a student doodling
while learning design.

The Moz://a one instantly makes me think there is a new product from Rand
Fishkin's Moz.com (formerly seomoz).

~~~
bluthru
It looks like a bunch of amateurs aping trendy styles instead of servicing the
Mozilla brand. Harsh language, but I would have never guessed the proposals
would be so flippant when opening the link.

------
woodruffw
I didn't even realize that the old dino logo had been phased out until I read
this post. I liked that logo a lot - it had a timeless quality to it.

I don't think that any of these replacements are particularly _bad_ (except
perhaps for that eye one...), but none seem to really capture the mental image
of " _Mozilla_ ".

Google designed their logo and branding following the Alphabet transition, but
kept the 'G' and color scheme to link users back to the original branding.
Mozilla would do well to follow suit.

~~~
hughw
Here's the oldest dino. I wish they could keep an allusion to him, at least:
[http://www.davetitus.com/mozilla/welcome.jpg](http://www.davetitus.com/mozilla/welcome.jpg)

Edit: That's from this interesting history page "How was Mozilla born: The
story of the first mascot on the Internet"
[http://www.davetitus.com/mozilla/](http://www.davetitus.com/mozilla/)

~~~
woodruffw
I actually had no idea that that green dino (lizard?) was the first Mozilla.
I've seen it around the Internet before, but I never made the connection.

Thanks for the link, this looks like a great read! And yes, I think an
allusion to either would in in good taste on the part of the Mozilla design
team.

------
yepperino
The proposed logos don't look like anything. They either need more proposals
or stick with the current logo.

~~~
yepperino
This guy articulated my thoughts better:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-
part/#co...](https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-
part/#comment-301)

------
anc84
How many thousands of Thunderbird development hours could have been paid with
this completely unnecessary nonsense?

~~~
isaacaggrey
Do you really think a desktop mail client is where Mozilla should be
investing?

~~~
sangnoir
> Do you really think a desktop mail client is where Mozilla should be
> investing?

Yes! A thousand times Yes! The first paragraph of Mozilla's mission
statement[1] reads _" Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public
resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people
first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered,
safe and independent"_

Email is still a very important and unsolved part of the internet, but Mozilla
has dropped the ball and is instead doubling down on IoT and other peripheral
projects. I don't see any other email client or email provider in existance
that empowers the individuals the way Mozilla could, which is a crying shame.

1.[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/mission/)

------
thiht
Wow, these are terrible

Yellow/Black one is just Kill Bill's branding. And what kind of message is
Sauron's eye in a logo?

Moz:// is interesting but as the :/ emoticone in it, that's everything I can
see

I don't even know where to begin with the connector, open button, wireframe
and the impossible M, were they designed like 30 years ago?

Flik Flak is ok I guess, but doesn't inspire me much

All in all, I like their current logo, I have no clue why they would change it

------
forgotpwtomain
Old logos for reference since they are not featured in the post:

[https://developer.cdn.mozilla.net/static/img/opengraph-
logo....](https://developer.cdn.mozilla.net/static/img/opengraph-
logo.dc4e08e2f6af.png)

[https://takebacktheweb.production.paas.mozilla.community/wp-...](https://takebacktheweb.production.paas.mozilla.community/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/mozilla-foundation.png)

~~~
geppetto
The first one - used in MDN - is modern, beautiful and clearly tied to Mozilla
brand and history. I don't get why they don't just use that.

------
laszlokorte
After clicking the link it actually took me a few minutes to realize that
those graphics I saw were not just some stock images meant to give the blog
post some color but that they are the _actual_ proposals for a new mozilla
logo...

Well I guess this list [1] needs an update and 7 more logos added...

[1]: [http://www.boredpanda.com/worst-logo-fails-
ever/](http://www.boredpanda.com/worst-logo-fails-ever/)

------
mrmondo
While I personally love Moz://a, I don't think any of these designs will help
iconify the message and strengths of the Mozilla Foundation to the general
public.

------
jrcii
As a professional logo designer for over a decade, the Moz://a is the best,
but they're all bad and inferior to the current logo.

------
fludlight
Why do some institutions have a burning need to change their logo every few
years?

~~~
apricot
Changing logos is the institutional version of cat waxing.

[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cat%20waxing](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cat%20waxing)

------
thatswrong0
That yellow logo looks an awful lot like Monsters Inc.

~~~
icebraining
Agreed, and the "merchandising" they designed even has a monster:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/files/2016/08/jb_Mozilla...](https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/files/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_A_eye_5-1400x990.jpg)

------
Maken
I want the dino back. The combination of the in-joke name and logo gave
Mozilla personality. It talked more about them more than any carefully
designed and full of pointless metaphors new logo will ever do.

------
eecks
They're all really bad in my opinion. Having said that I hated Instagram's
recent rebranding but now I love it.

------
Sylos
After reading the explanation for the eye-logo, it's sort of my favorite, as
it has the most character and fits Mozilla's message best, in my opinion.

However. When I first saw the logo, I thought of Eye of Sauron, the all-
overlooking eye which sees everything you do. And that doesn't represent
Mozilla at all.

------
oliv__

        Which of these initial visual expressions best captures what Mozilla means to you? Which will best help us tell our story to a youthful, values-driven audience? Which brings to life the Mozilla personality: Gutsy, Independent, Buoyant, For Good?
    

I don't know, they're all terrible...

------
tmzt
The last one (flik/flak) might work well with the new browserhtml UX for
servo, 3d navigation, breaking away from the traditional forward/back buttons
ironically echoed in the "open" design.

See the screenshot/mockup here

[https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml/blob/master/brows...](https://github.com/browserhtml/browserhtml/blob/master/browser.gif)

As another comment mentioned, why not start with Firefox which has had the
same branding since Ian introduced it in a blog post probably over a decade
ago.

Simplify the logo to nearly dichromatic, with subtle depth cues.

Beyond that the brand has to be about something, like a faster more open web
in the past, and possibly privacy and security should be added now.

Edge seems to be stalling, Chrome is fast but the core (blink) is becoming
outdated as is Gecko. ("Next-generation layout" as it was called back when
XPCOM was a thing.)

Battery life matters in mobile and that's something that WebRender can improve
with the right driver support.

The other opportunity here is privacy, improve the extension API and the
network layer to support filters, making Firefox the ad-blocking friendly
browser. This woulsd be faster than a SOCKS proxy, avoid the extra copies and
context switches.

Talk about the "advanced security" and how the latest standards are supported
on all platforms, unlike IE or Chrome.

Consider introducing a new HTML-based UX on the Gecko-based browser along with
process isolation and Rust components.

Simplify the UX to match Chrome, but introduce new extension points using web
components or the like. Chrome has extensions that can "read any page",
Firefox could limit them to pages they are activated on by user action. It
should be possible to have extensions that cannot access "chrome" features,
such as file IO or socket IO.

Maybe have a specific area in the UX where page actions can be registered,
similar to the old CSS stylesheet picker in early versions of Firefox. This
would avoid browser toolbars and other things that slow Firefox down over
time.

------
ajamesm
The sluggish browser, outdated mail client, useless Hello integration, and
misguided Pocket bundling have done more to "brand" Mozilla for me than some
new vector art.

~~~
ffggvv
Let's encrypt, Rust/Servo,
[https://optin.stopwatching.us/](https://optin.stopwatching.us/) is what
mozilla means to me.

Donate [https://donate.mozilla.org](https://donate.mozilla.org) or contribute
some code instead of complaining.

~~~
ajamesm
My gripes aren't due to a lack of effort, LOC or money, but completely silly
product visions.

I have plenty of contributions I could make, but they're all about -50,000 LOC
and they won't get merged.

~~~
brador
The code is open source. What's the viability of successfully forking
everything and doing it right with a competing open product? Could it be done?

~~~
drdaeman
No chance if done single-handedly or by a tiny group. I believe, most forks
end up dead in some months (if ever synced with upstream).

It's no big deal to fork a project and write some code. Yet, it's requires a
tremendous effort to maintain it and keep up with all the upstream changes.

(I wonder if there's enough of community bothered by ever-increasing
infestation of the browser by Mozilla's own proprietary technologies - e.g.
anything related to "Firefox Account" \- to start a schism.)

~~~
ffggvv
There's IceCat

------
iopq
Bring back Mozilla the IE-stomping monster.

------
htor
The Connector looks promising! But those logos doesn't cut the mustard at all.

------
supernintendo
I will give my thoughts on each of them:

"The Eye" \- Right off the bat, obfuscating the brand name like this is a bad
idea. Look around on Logopedia [1] for a while and you'll notice that most
corporate branding spells the company name out clearly. There's a reason for
this. As beautiful as your stylized, geometric typography may look, it takes
too long to get the point across. Human perception is variable; state your
name loud and proud so all hear it. Further, yellow is a risky color in this
case. It is traditionally used to evoke "sunny" feels but is more commonly
associated with "caution" on the Internet. I also get this anxious feeling
from the Eye of Mordor motif which reminds me of Internet surveillance more
than it does freedom.

"The Connector" \- I quite like the concept behind this one. One of the
aspects of free software that I believe we take for granted is that open
collaboration brings people together from all countries and cultures to solve
common problems. I think the theme of "unity" is communicated effectively here
with a fairly appealing minimalist design. My main criticism is in the
geometry of the multicolored logo. The shapes are incongruent in their
direction and give the larger logo a chaotic pull.

"Open button" \- Once again, I like the concept of bringing people together.
Unfortunately, this one just doesn't appeal to my tastes at all. The colors
(which do not complement each other) and stroke come together in a very loud
logo that not a lot of people are going to associate with "openness" (I'm not
sure if that "open" icon is a standard or something the designer conceived of,
but I don't recognize it). If I had to pick one word to describe this logo, it
would be "garish". Tone it down and tighten it up.

"Protocol" \- Nice touch with the `://`. As an alternate logo used in the
context of API documentation, technical wikis, etc., I quite like it. However,
I'll refer back to the obfuscation argument I made with "The Eye". You really
want your corporate branding to convey that brand name as efficiently as
possible. Again, eliminate any perceptual barriers to entry. This logo
empathizes with English-speaking techies but doesn't necessarily translate
well to other markets. If evangelizing free software is part of Mozilla's
mission statement, they might find it beneficial to do so outside of the
circles already using it. This logo falls short in that regard.

"Wireframe world" \- Style without substance. Look at the IBM logo designed by
Paul Rand [2]. It's strong and industrial while also having that little touch
of personality that tells the story of IBM as a technology company - the
scanlines. This visual cue is done so in a way that allows "IBM" to still be
easily read at all distance. Compare that to this "Wireframe world" logo. The
brand name isn't what is front-and-center here. Instead we get some lousy
shape that tries to conveys an "M" and maybe a network? Either way, it's
visually and conceptually unclear and not suitable for a corporate logo.

"The Impossible M" \- This one's okay. Obviously M.C. Escher inspired, evokes
the idea of technology that once seemed impossible. I enjoy what the designer
is going for here. Compositionally it's very bold and works at a distance
better than maybe any of the other logos. As far as my criticisms go, it looks
a little stretched out. Maybe play with the proportions a bit. The colors look
like they were rendered by a 1980s CGA graphics card. Try to go for a less
saturated palette. I'm also not sold on the "MOZILLA" typography. The
capitalization and kerning don't work well, although maybe it's the font
itself.

"Flik Flak" \- Refer to my comments about "Wireframe world". This is just more
geometric trite that doesn't effectively communicate anything about Mozilla.
The rotation and size of the type minimizes its role in the branding which is
not good. Also not a fan of the colors here - your blue and orange sort of
complement each other (would go for a more saturated orange) but the green
completely throws it off.

[1]
[http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Logopedia](http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Logopedia)

[2] [http://qz.com/461040/how-to-design-an-enduring-logo-
lessons-...](http://qz.com/461040/how-to-design-an-enduring-logo-lessons-from-
ibm-and-paul-rand/)

------
cocotino
The original logo is nowhere to be found on that page because they don't have
the balls to compare it to any of the new ones.

Translation: you better not change it.

