Now this might just be my prejudice (and please don't downvote me for admitting it :-) !) but when it comes to a "brand identity", prejudices and impressions are important.
This new branding doesn't help at all with my perception of Mozilla. If anything, it emphasizes the perception that Mozilla is a bloated entity disconnected from the products I care about. That they put a nerdy "://" in there to appeal technical means to me that they are even aware of this.
What I would have done is to go back to the early 2000s unapologetically retro dinosaur. This was from a time when Mozilla was the underdog, when it was the Free alternative, when it was getting better and better, and when Firefox was invented.
Alternatively, ditch "Mozilla" and "Foundation", and rebrand as just "Firefox". Everybody loves Firefox.
They also can't stand still, so they invest in experiments and R&D, much like how companies are doing. Most of those experiments are failures naturally, so they tried Firefox OS and failed, they tried Persona and failed, but that's what experimenting is, HN readers should understand that and without burning some money on that, you'll never build those projects that make a difference.
Reading your message again, I don't understand what's your problem with Mozilla. And why is Mozilla under so much pressure on HN, whereas companies such as Apple and Google are getting a free pass on how they spend their money and on moral issues? Is it because they are a non-profit? That's the only explanation that's reasonable for what is in my eyes a huge double standard.
> Alternatively, ditch "Mozilla" and "Foundation", and rebrand as just "Firefox". Everybody loves Firefox.
Except that Firefox per se isn't why I love supporting them. I'm supporting Mozilla because of their values and I use Firefox as my main browser because I trust Mozilla to protect my interests more than I trust others, not because Firefox is technically the best, because saying that at this point wouldn't be true.
There is a reason those failed (lack of focus or any long-term plans are one).
Reading your message again, I don't understand what's your problem with Mozilla. And why is Mozilla under so much pressure on HN, whereas companies such as Apple and Google are getting a free pass? Is it because they are a non-profit
Have we been reading the same HN?
I think people are critical of Mozilla because they are one of the few groups trying to build an open web and their constant back and forth and closing down projects has had some real effects on progress.
Also, the firing of Eich for political views will always be controversial.
Eich wasn't fired. He quit because he felt Mozilla was put under too much pressure because of him. Ironic you should remark that given the point of the post you're replying to: he quit exactly because of the reason you are using as justification.
I wonder what will happen when it leaks out the new CEO voted for Trump/Hillary.
FirefoxOS? Either commit to it or don't, but the way it was rolled out and abandoned after a few years didn't feel especially strategic.
Ok, Eich wasn't fired, but he resigned because his own employees were calling for him to be fired.
Firefox OS from an "open web" perspective, was primarily a vehicle to push for the standardization of web APIs needed for mobile devices. It has succeeded in doing that and many Firefox OS improvements are now incorporated into Firefox for Android. But given the complete dominance of Android on the low end, it would have been extremely foolish to continue it, as that would have been literally burning through cash. Consider that even Microsoft has failed spectacularly, given all their resources and experience in building operating systems.
> Ok, Eich wasn't fired, but he resigned because his own employees were calling for him to be fired.
Wait, people are allowed to speak their own mind? Oh, the horror.
I just gave a keynote on this exact subject at linux.conf.au; video should be online in a few hours somewhere under https://www.youtube.com/user/linuxconfau2017/videos?shelf_id.... The title is "Designing for Failure."
"Let's get something straight first. I'm not a fan of excuses. Persona failed to achieve its goals, and I'd rather we own up to what it was good at, and what it failed at, learn from it, and keep fighting for better authentication on the internet because that's what matters."
2. We committed massively to Firefox OS relative to our size and revenue.
I recall well all the meetings and arguments from the early days. The commitment to Firefox OS (née B2G) was late. It came after two years from B2G launch in late July 2011, until after Ben Adida left in July 2013. Mike Hanson took over for Ben on the identity team side; Fernando Jiménez Moreno from Telefónica (https://github.com/ferjm) did the B2G-side work.
Maybe that was right on time. I don't think so: Facebook Connect was even more entrenched, and Android installed base was climbing out of the Gingerbread 2.3 swamp. The commitment may have been massively massive once started, from your point of view. However, it was almost two years late precisely because we had to argue endlessly, from executive level down, against Ben's preferred non-Firefox/non-OS browserid adoption strategy: the JS shim library.
This doesn't "feel" like a very well substantiated argument either. It received little traction, users didn't like the performance of the devices at the price points needed to penetrate the market, key apps (hi WhatsApp!) had announced they would not port , and Google responded in force with Android One. It took enormous amounts of resources from Firefox development. Looks to me like they committed as far as they could without bringing the entire company under.
Mozilla Foundation people (i.e. not his employees) actually. But anyway, I hope this argument works for the president too.
I had a toy firefox phone to play with that had potato level processing power. I was actually surprised by how smooth everything was, way better than android on way less hardware. Firefox seems to be the only browser optimized for portables.
There was also the issue of at least one major website soft-blocking Firefox users in protest.
That worked about as well as you would expect.
Eventually, Mark Mayo got Firefox Accounts going, but it was non-federated. In truth so was Persona: Mozilla ran the only IdP of note. Also, prior to Accounts, the protocol seemed to fork in anti-federated ways, but to me that was just teething pain, to be overcome by further evolution.
The fatal problems were threefold:
1. Facebook had huge scale and even in 2011 (browserid days) it had already won.
2. The Persona team was averse to integrating into Firefox, for whatever client population "interop readiness" pressure that might have put on servers (Metcalfe's Law is a barrier to new protocol adoption).
3. Users don't grok federated identity. Relying party? (That's the first party, the site to which you're browsing with clear intent and understanding of its identity -- assuming you haven't been phished.) Identity provider? (What's this sketchy popup I get every week or so asking me to re-login to some third party?) The whole federated Rp/Idp/browser three-body problem is confusing and looks like some kind of hack, not just phishing but popup malware.
The initial centralized or under-federated situation to me was not fatal, but could have become so if problems 1-3 didn't doom the whole effort.
Firefox OS indeed suffered from slow and half-hearted commitment from July 2011 on. Not even half-hearted: at first, it was a pirate ship. The CEO told another exec that in previous jobs, someone would have been fired for launching it via a post to mozilla.dev.platform (even though drafts of that post had been discussed and vetted by all execs who were paying attention).
Don't get me wrong, even with aggressive resourcing from mid-2011, Firefox OS might not have made it. But half-hearted, slow-rolled "investment" was worse than either "do" or "do not". No half measures, as Mike in "Breaking Bad" taught.
None of my employees called for me to be fired. You're confusing six Mozilla Foundation employees with people who worked for me in the (arm's length, for profit subsidiary) Mozilla Corporation. See http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to... (which, typical of coverage at the time, fails to note those employees worked for an entirely separate org from the one I was CEO of).
Companies like Google shut down projects every day, one of the differences is that Mozilla works in the open and isn't so secretive.
But, I do know former employees and the company overall is a mess, with some teams better than others. People say the same thing about Apple though.
Yahoo! (being bought by Verizon, still in progress).
I've heard Mozilla's "politics" are very much different to what I prefer, but whatever. It doesn't leak into the end products. As long as they keep producing a browser that prevents Google Browser from taking over, they're a force of good. And Rust is amazing and probably life-changing for me, so that's two massive positive things they do.
As far as the logo, that "retro" dinosaur looked a bit outdated. I fully support them "burning" millions on branding if it means more people use Firefox. I use FF for "freedom" but that's a tough sell. Even technically inclined people I know use Chrome and don't wanna change because of freedom.
My only request would be for them to throw more weight behind Rust. The community and tech is amazing. But getting buy-in from clients to use Rust might benefit from knowing there's a "company" behind it. Maybe.
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure we employ most of the core Rust and Servo teams. We also pay for all the infrastructure costs for both projects (web hosting, crates.io, CI). Additionally we've also spent a lot of time engineering the Rust ecosystem to meet the needs of large projects like Firefox and Servo to ensure that it meets real-world needs.
One thing people need to keep in mind when saying "Mozilla should put more resources into X" is that we're not a very large company in the space we work in. We have something like 1,200 full-time equivalent employees and we ship software that competes with products from companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft. We constantly have an outflow of employees who get offers for more money from larger companies, or who leave to join startups. We're well-funded, but we're not a public company not will we have an IPO, so it's hard to compete with stock options for the promise of big money. That doesn't matter to everyone, but it's hard to fault people for wanting it.
We don't always get everything right, but I think right now we're doing about the best we possibly can to fulfill our mission with the resources available.
The way of thinking in your comment is really common... let's look backwards, never modernise or improve things. Never make a considerably better Macbook Pro (in terms of design anyway), BBC website (thousands of users says every redesign is terrible and they want this back: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4832892.stm) or logo identity (I still rate the 2012 olympics logo - https://www.fastcodesign.com/1670429/the-surprisingly-smart-...). Let's keep everything the same or look backwards to see how we should move forward.
I know lots of people doing interesting things at Mozilla and I have no idea why they get such a bad rap; the worst thing they have done is shutting down Persona IMO.
The other movers in this space are for-profit corporations. Nobody's expecting anything of them. The resulting dread leads to unrealistic and even conflicting expectations for Mozilla.
If for example Google does something bad, then that's no news worth reporting about. It's just business as usual. And people will even defend Google, saying that they are a company, they are supposed to do everything to maximize profits, even if what they do is just barely scraping along the borders of legality.
If instead Mozilla does something vaguely questionable, then most journalists will just leap at the opportunity to report about the innocent-thought Mozilla turning evil.
Really? What else did you think they did?
To quote a portion of my post, these audiences are, in increasing order of vocalness:
[a] the impressionable; the next-wave of web user who has recently gotten online
[b] the alternative-seeker; the average web user who is uneasy with Google
[c] the idealist; the open web, open-source advocate
It might be interesting to compare that to your list.
Is this even a demographic? I really dislike Google. But I still use search (DDG just doesn't quite cut it for me). And Chrome for a few sites. And YouTube. And Android and Play Music, which gets my kids ad-free YouTube.
FF needs to be appealing by itself, not in contrast to Google, to succeed. Features like adblock on Android - that's powerful stuff.
>web user that just got online
Is this much of a demographic in developed countries?
They can now control and mine your searches, the videos you view, the email you send and receive, your contacts list, your location, literally keeping track of where you've been, the mobile apps you use, your purchased eBooks, your music subscription, your browsing history, your chats, your cloud data, etc. The only thing they failed at is social networking.
I see many people placing so much trust in Google, but that's very foolish. Even if they behaved well until now, power inevitably corrupts and even if they kept your data safe, let's say for the sake of this argument, you don't know where that data will be tomorrow. Plus there are people that lost access to everything due to one of their automated processes that bans accounts based on weird heuristics, e.g. people getting banned from their email account because they've bought and sold a Pixel. How fucked up is that?
I must also say that even though I can forgive Mozilla for every one of their failures because they were in good faith, I cannot forgive Google for killing Google Reader in order to promote Google+.
So I would say that non-Google is definitely a feature. I use Firefox because I trust Mozilla more than Google, Apple or Microsoft, with the browser being the window to all my communications and secret desires. Of course, I still use other Google products, including Chrome and Android, though not full time, my work email is GSuite (personal is FastMail), etc.
Isn't the money from Yahoo now?
Note that marketing is how they get the install base that Google pays for default searches for.
In which spatio-temporal continuum did it happen this way?
If you like, marketing is how they _keep_ their install base.
First, what do you ask for in a query? Will some web sites choose to say “mozilla” and others “moz://a”, thereby splitting search traffic between the references?
Just typing something like “moz://a” (even in a comment post such as this) might cause some sites or scrub-analyzers to assume that the text represents a valid URL of type "moz" and try to make it clickable and resolve to that URL type. Bonus points for the first malware to figure out how to hijack the "moz" URL type.
What is their web site? Not "moz://a" but "https://www.mozilla.org". Can anyone even type "moz://a" or "https://moz://a"? Can’t wait for this to cause problems.
Either people don't know about Mozilla in which case they probably don't care or don't understand the ://.
Or if they do know about Mozilla and having :// just looks lame.
We had a designer that proposed to use '|<' as the letter 'K' in our logo. Cause y'know we were a technology company... and y'know we write code...
We didn't use that designer.
Product: "We need to engage more with our developer customers."
Marketing: "What do developers have strong positive emotions about?"
Product: "Our customer interviews suggest they like writing code."
Design: "We'll do the billboards entirely in monospace."
Especially when the copy doesn't even line up vertically. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0qaKcUCAAA-enL.jpg
While your general point might be right, this is an unfair implication. They've gave it plenty of consideration, considered with many, many people, and did so all in the open: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/
There is concerns about the protocol being hidden in browsers these days, so non-technical people won't know what it references.
On the other hand, if people don't know what it references then there's no way people will be confused by it.
Yeah...not sure this is a great idea.
Also, the new logo reminded me of Curl.
I just can't even
_ / // /
_ __ ___ ___ ___(_) / // /_ _
| '_ ` _ \ / _ \_ / / // / _` |
| | | | | | (_) / / _/ // / (_| |
|_| |_| |_|\___/___(_)//_/ \__,_|
I couldn't download anything. /s(aracasm)
I think it is good that Mozilla stuck to a geeky expression.
The "eye" looks like either the Eye of Sauron (i.e. evil) or a stylized vagina (i.e. inappropriate).
The "connector" is cute but useless for branding because it becomes excessively generic.
The "open" looks like someone mixed a console icon with an insurance company's logo.
The "wireframe" is bland with weak typography.
The "impossible M" is appropriate for a conference but not a company. It also just doesn't work at smaller scales or with other colors.
The "flik flak" is not even a logo.
These aren't good designs for their purpose. The "moz://a" logo isn't good but it's vastly more appropriate than the rest of them.
I've been using Firefox since it's inception and the Communicator Suite before that. To me this just screams out as a plea for attention to the younger generations.
This is like some weird episode of Saved By The Bell where Mr Belding puts on jeans and a ball cap to try and fit in with Zach and Slater.
This kind of seems like the best of a bunch of mediocre concepts. Instead of having a design agency do the logos and then selecting from them, it would have been interesting to take designs from the community - surely some more interesting designs would have been proposed.
Mozilla hasn't been a product brand for a long time.
Making a product that offers something that others don't attracts the gravitas of power users that they're seemingly attempting to cater to with Dev Tools and Firefox Developer Edition.
I digress, best of luck to the Foundation!
 - https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/
The old logo was the least of their problems.
Good. Then drop the marketing and start doing something useful.
- 'The eye' has completely illegible lettering
- 'The connector' has a ugly 'i' that's out of alignment with the other letters and the 'z' and 'a' are ugly
- All the all capitals logos have so little personality
- I can't describe what I don't like about the 'Open Button' type face. Just that the Flik Flak one looks much cleaner.
- With 'Flik Flak' the spacing between the 'l's and around the dot of the 'i' are equal. The 'o' is a circle (just makes me think of SVG).
I guess though the Flik Flak font was just too boring for them. Too close to Helvetica - I guess is is just Helvetica with a modified 'o'
Even the slightly crazy logo they had to go 'Flik Flak' is growing on me, looks alright on t-shirts . Reminds me of the indie game 'Monument Valley' 
Honestly, they could just write "mozilla" or "m" in lower case in #f00 and move on. Firefox is getting pushed out by Chrome, which was arguably their most mass-market offering, so that cash would be better spent on tech, where flashy redesigns don't really matter.
I have to disagree. Chrome doesn’t push out Firefox because it’s better (which it’s not), but because of anticompetitive actions from Google and a multimillion dollar marketing effort, which included for months massive ad campaigns all over AdSense/AdWords.
Oh, I didn't mean that it was being pushed out because it was necessarily "worse tech", just that it's happening.
I agree with the others on here, the dinosaur was the best.
Before clicking I thought it would suck, like many other rebranding efforts I've seen semi-recently (see Yahoo!), but this looks really cool.
:// stands for internet/web, but it's also generic enough to work in other situations IMO.
If we're going back in time, please bring back the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_(mascot)#/media/File:M...
...because it already was? The whole thing started as a collaboration between Mozilla and the EFF. Its success allowed Josh to spin it out into an independent organization, and focus on it full-time.
There are many other fronts that Mozilla is fighting on, just less visibly: WebAssembly, Rust, Daala/AOMedia, WebVR, etc.
Having lived through the first browser wars, I can think of few things more important for the safety and health of the Internet than a vibrant, competitive browser market. And with the progress being made on Servo and Quantum, I suspect conceding to Chrome would be premature.
Source: I am a Mozilla employee and a board member of ISRG (which operates Let's Encrypt).
Mozilla is a platinum-level sponsor of Let's Encrypt. https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/
Using non-alphabetic characters in a logo requires a pretty careful execution. An old ISP here used to be Optus@Home. I could parse that fine because it was fairly balanced, relatively minimal and reads smoothly (say it out loud and it is perfectly pronouncable, so reading it in your head is similarly effortless).
In contrast, moz://a both looks weird (the / stand far higher than the alphabetic characters in most fonts, there's 3 letters on one side and 1 on the other), it's mentally taxing (how do I pronounce ://? oh wait, that's right, I need to parse it as 'ill' when reading it in my mind's voice. I also need to remember when focusing on it in isolation not to parse it as a smiley like decades of internet usage has conditioned me to. This is the same effect as when you see <3 in some maths/code and parse it as 'heart' rather than 'less than three') and it doesn't smoothly parse as a standalone thing like @ does as 'at'.
I really don't like it.
The peppy music and over the top statements don't jive either, I consider mozilla to be a geek brand and everything in the video is feel-good overly generic stuff reminiscent of a poor startup intro video.
Then again, I'm not sure I'd do better. But I'm just saying.. doesn't speak to me about anything.
The :// is a nice nod to nerddom and a tribute to its origins, but the rest of it tries to punch it out of its box of 'we write code and set standards and stuff' that increasingly hasn't been the whole story.
They need something that appeals to a broad, diverse group of people who may be tech-savvy but not have a background in tech, and whose lifestyles and futures are at stake in the power struggle for the open web. I think this is a rather good effort that works and is notably much, much better than any of the other options that were under consideration in their open process.
I don't understand the point of "branding" Mozilla. Why waste time and money on changing pictures, when I doubt this will change anything? It sounds a lot like rebranding Yahoo.
Folks that care about the org wasting money, not keeping the retro dinosaur, folks that think branding is a waste - they probably already support Mozilla. No one's gonna switch to Chrome over this. Maybe if it's shown Mozilla is really actually wasting money like and mismanaging things, it might hurt their open source participation. Or if they publicly got super political.
This is of course if your rebrand was a success, and that's a very very difficult task dependent on all sorts of internal factors, that even the largest companies get wrong (see Gap, Uber, Pepsi). Don't listen to me though:
Also, in case you're referring to the Yahoo -> Altaba rebrand rather than a former Yahoo logo change: Mozilla is keeping its name. This is just about the logo.
So if you hire too many PR guys eventually someone will try to rebrand your corporate identity.
(not a popular opinion on HN, so goodbye useless digital karma).
Honestly they just need to focus on Firefox, Thunderbird, MDN, lobbying for a free Internet and help design open standards.
Mozilla has a great, trustworthy image, their management just needs to focus on the things Mozilla does well.
I think it's time to remove the Mozilla Foundation from the list of organizations I donate to. Apparently they've got enough money already, if blowing all these resources on this project is any indication.
I remember when they announced their "short list" of "concepts" several months ago and thinking then how terrible they were. This reeks of "design by committee" more than anything I've seen in recent times.
Your donations go directly to, and stay within, the Foundation.
I am a front-end web developer who never wanted to be a front-end web developer. I wanted to be a designer (UX specifically). In order to get a job as a designer, you need a portfolio, preferably with shipped products. So I then create said portfolio to show of my designs (which I also developed because designs are nothing if they aren't implemented). However, with my fancy new portfolio (and still to this day), I can't seem to find me a design job, but I sure can find myself a front-end web position. I definitely would be happier in life if I was a designer.
So when I see shit like this, I always wonder why is it so hard to find a design job?
Because it faster and cheaper to pay one person to do both the design and the work to make it a reality.
There is also a supply and demand issue. Too many designers, not enough front-end devs (which is why you can easily find jobs as an employee)
if you want to be a designer only, I would suggest striking out on your own and hiring out for the work you dislike.
Good luck dethroning an industry leader in SEO at... SEO.
Why "a"? They should've just had URI fun and rebranded as moz:// (pronounced "mahz")
the list goes on!
I guess you could have moz://a/firefox but why A? A disk drive?
It would've been cool if something actually lived there.
Whatever it is, I don't like it. I didn't know Mozilla had an identity problem. I see at the top, the title, in all lower case is, "internet for people, not pr..." Hovering the title I see it's "not profit".
I'm sorry but that makes your identity worse to me. I remember the dinosaur looking head with "mozilla" wasn't particularly professional, but it didn't seem to matter. It was fine. This new one hurts my brain. The slogan sounds like something from a teenager trying to rebel. I don't even know what it means. Internet for people? That's what the internet is, for people. That tells me nothing about Mozilla, except that they don't want profit. Which makes it sound like they're going to fail, because that's not even a good attitude to have. You profit if you're producing value and sharing it with people in a fair way that people love.
This new identity seems to me like a grumpy uncool guy who is pissed he's uncool so decided his New Year's resolution was to change that. This is his makeover. His attempt to dress himself up and finally win the cool friends. But that tells me I wasn't enough as a friend. I've used Firefox forever. I never hated Mozilla, except I thought it was unfair when that CEO was forced to resign over his personal beliefs. I thought that was none of my business and nothing to do with the software. But I don't like words I c@n/t read. Micro$oft at least looks like a letter, please don't use s/ashes and co:ons in a w:0(o)r//d.
But whatever. Soon I'll go back to not caring like the dinosaur. I'll recognize it from the pattern and not try to read it. Nothing much will change. You are who you are, and a wardrobe and new attitude won't make you popular. But good luck.
in the browser but it didn't work. What am I doing wrong?
(I know what I'm doing wrong but not everyone would. Typing a brand's name in the browser in the hopes to get to their website is not illogical.)
(It's a great day for moz.com, the first result in my region)
Humor aside, what a disaster. I love Mozilla so much, so a failure in any of its branding aspects is painful for me.
I'm wondering, is this caused by "smart people's blindness" -- the inability to see the world through the eyes of less educated individuals?
In this case, presuming that
* everyone knows how urls work and the role of slashes and semicolon
* everyone knows it's "mozilla" despite substituting letters for punctuation
But Mozilla is a large organization... how did they do a full rebranding without focus groups or at least showing it to a varied types of people.
Lastly, where's my dinosaur?
I looked at some of the blog posts but couldn't find this topic.
So "://" is basically "extremely meh".
For all its faults, shortcomings and failures in certain experiments, I still love Mozilla and what it stands for!
I hope they do this soon.
Which, now that I think of it, has an identical name to MDN anyway. Oh well.
They'd almost be better served going with one of the worse options because at least it would have a bit more personality.
Open-source is great for a lot of things, but it's incredibly rare to find good design in open-source spaces. This doesn't change that.
Most designers (and many laypeople) will look at colon-forward-slash-forward-slash and easily see "ill," while many people who still type in URLs and use colons and forward slashes outside of sentences and they see those literal characters.
It wouldn't be a problem if so many of Mozilla's target users didn't fall into that second group.
This is a visual identity solution that is clever at first glance, and which seems especially clever to non-technologists, but shouldn't have made it all the way to market.
There's a series of gates similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs that a visual design should progress. One of the first three gates, even for a logotype, should be usability.
It seems like the new Mozilla logo fails the usability test for enough core users to be a problem.
It's cool to see designers take chances. You live and learn.
I, personally, don't think their old identity was the thing holding them back, but new CMOs/CDOs love a visual rebranding. Nothing says this is now MY house more than a fresh coat of paint!
Promoting this change will cost millions.
I hope this is not the same case, but when I was working on lots of places, and there was a manager who didn't have any results, he usually proposed things like this one. Useless, not needed, confusing clients, and extremely expensive. Then the upper management, who usually was not very technical, and couldn't understand our changelogs, was very happy with this change. Maybe because this was the only thing they could fully understand. This kind of change usually was something like: changing the name of the main product, the name of the company, or changing the official colors (which included a new logo, new website, lots of new printed materials). Did I say that this manager was promoted?
There’s a lesson in here somewhere on why you shouldn’t make design decisions a public matter.
I for one like the new logo - it's less staid, a bit more playful, and more indicative of Mozilla than the previous one (which was just the name rendered in some font). But that's a subjective opinion, and I'm not going to pretend there's an objective truth to it.
They also based their new typeface Fira Sans off that original logotype, which is what they use to brand Firefox. So they also fragment that brand association.
Wait a minute...
I think it would help if they had less money, so that they would focus more on their core product - a web browser.
You have to be joking right? So as soon as an open community becomes well funded you hate on it. Seems like you are more interested in rooting for the underdog than actually succeeding with open source ideals.
Not saying that's what's happening at Mozilla, but the OP isn't completely wrong in that criticism.
Mind = Blown.
Taking money for advertising and branding is OK if it's yours? I can get behind that, hahaha!
When was the Courier font ever used as a default in any editor?
Oh boy, do we have a youngster here.
Back in the days. Before true type (freely scalable) fonts. When Windows was based on DOS.
Even the default console font in MS DOS was courier-like.
It's not a far fetched claim. It definitely shows long roots.
Also: Show source in Firefox uses (used?) Courier iirc.
* Here's a screenshot of Windows 1.0 showing the various fonts it ships with, you'll note the Terminal font is different from Courier. https://youtu.be/KWEsBiIxMaU?t=558 and in another video here https://youtu.be/xiKwErpPwMs?t=154 -- you can see Windows 1.0 Notepad using non-Courier font.
* Here's Notepad for Windows 3.1 -- https://youtu.be/xO8eQUjjFNc?t=613
Perhaps you'll take a break from ageism and provide some better examples? FWIW, I'm about 2 years younger than you.
What can I say, I do like the font...and, yes, I'm one of those people who love courier and georgia-type fonts, hence my appreciation for this one.
Anyway, if anyone knows where i can grab the font files, please reply. Thanks!
Instead, they pushed it too far in my opinion, with the overly clever glyph replacement.
This seems like the sort of thing that will be enshrined in epic design mistakes to me. Great font, should stop there, tries to embellish too much, goes overboard into confusing users.
That said, it doesn't matter very much - if the product is robust with good APIs + they are making the other strategic decisions they need to given their small market share, they will do ok.
That said, an exceptional consumer focused branding initiative could actually help them quite a lot.
The logo itself isn't so bad, but the rest of it is borderline disaster. The spot lacks originality, consistency, the creative quality is quite low.
I respect the notion of trying to mix images and forms that are obviously inconsistent with each other - but that's a hard/risky thing to do and they didn't pull it off. My god they have windows 'webdings' with arbitrary shapes, odd colour effects, smiley faces. The icons are inconsistent with each other.
The sequence from the 13 second mark to the 19 second mark is up there with the worst bits of 'professional' marketing collateral I've ever seen in any domain.
Even the music ... it sounds like the first thing a kid put together the first time he tried to make a rhythm sequence on garage band.
Here is a very similar sounding track (the fun/jungly rhythm line), well produced, which has a modern, fresh feel and would fit the narrative of whatever they were trying to do:
That track without the vocals would have been a good choice.
All of that before we get into the branding issues, and how consistently or poignantly it promotes Mozillas actual identity - there is absolutely nothing in that spot that directs you to what Mozilla is, or is trying to be.
Ask yourself: after you watched that, did you get any idea at all of what they were trying to say? Even from a creative perspective?
Even the copy:
"The internet it's at the heart of what we do"
"One idea link what we do"
"Mozilla maker party"
"Mozilla all hands"
"Mozilla emerging technologies"
"And spans the world"
"It works both big and small and welcomes everyone"
"For people over profit"
"Champions for a healthy internet"
"Love the internet"
It's almost random copy.
Here's what would have worked better:
Just the logo (which is decent).
A single tag line, like: "For the people" - which hints at the idea of open/non-profit and 'empowerment' without having intellectualize it, and modestly differentiates them from the 'other' browser brands.
A modern audio track, done by producers who know how to create a fresh sound, followed zooms and cuts of actual good apps in a mozilla browser.
Now wouldn't be particularly great, but it would be simple, clean, and at least not confusing.
That said it could have been saved with higher quality creative work.
Ironically, the site where they actually run down their branding effort, is itself, a pretty good branding exercise unto it's own: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/
So that is 'being critical'. I don't like to be so negative, but this spot shouldn't have made it out.
The logo is acceptable but not great. The video is awful and tells me nothing about what they do that I should care about beyond what everyone knows - Firefox.
The branding site has some really awesome edgy ideas that I'd have gotten behind. But I guess it's true what they say - you can't put lipstick on a pig.
I perceived the video as a semi-official summary from the design team showing off their work, rather than as a Mozilla commercial.
Yes. It was fairly clear. "One idea links what we do" (despite you misspelling the copy in your own comment), it goes on to show how the branding can be used in it's various events and endeavors. The goal is to introduce the new brand, not Mozilla and all that it does.
Your solution doesn't solve that problem. For example, with the new brand, you ignore show how this works with All Hands, something you dismiss as "all hands." Already your "solution" fails at showing the branding at work.
I saw the others designs that they had, they were all even worse than this.
Somebody made a mistake by not firing that design firm and hiring somebody else.
Kewl, mozilla, very kewl.
I don't associate Mozilla with anthropoligical notions of web. To me they ship open products that incarnates the values, not brand and aesthetics.
All in all I think it's 99% unnecessary and deviates attention from beautiful things like rust, mdn.
Best of luck to them.
Old mate Randy is probably pretty stoked about this.
Thank God. This might age well, and it's as trivial as it gets to create a branded-button / link.
Won't be winning any awards, but eh