Mozilla is changing its look—and asking the Internet for feedback - Polidicks

the Eye has a lot of potential for branding, because it comes with a nifty icon that's recognizable even if you drop the rest of the logo and the color: [t]https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/files/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_A_eye_3-1400x990.jpg[/t] Thing is, it looks a little childish. Mozilla isn't a tech startup. Protocol gives a very professional, big business look, and it represents what they're all about: the web and the tech related to it. It's not quite an IBM logo, but it's definitely the best out of the bunch.

Here's my take on it. [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZtzfvxP.jpg[/img]

The 4th one is probably the "best" but jesus christ all of these are rolling dumpster fires

First ones giving me monster inc vibes.

[T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_G_flikflak_1-1400x990.jpg[/T] aren't logos supposed to be easily-replicated, simple shapes with very few colors? how is anyone going to remember this [T]http://jazminharbandrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/goodlogos.png[/T] only one or two of their concepts are okay compared to the ones above

I like wireframe world somewhat, but mainly since I'm also a sucker for minimalism in things like that.

[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;50926756]I like wireframe world somewhat, but mainly since I'm also a sucker for minimalism in things like that.[/QUOTE] i think it would look better if it were animated somehow.

[QUOTE=Wowza!;50925778][T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_A_eye_1-1400x990.jpg[/T][/QUOTE] An ominous lizard eye logo for a privacy-focused company? It's decent aesthetically but really?

holy fuck these are terrible you have to be as simple as you can be while still being unique the original logo does that fine

[QUOTE=Alexak75;50926799]An ominous lizard eye logo for a privacy-focused company? It's decent aesthetically but really?[/QUOTE] I thought more towards the eye of sauron

what if they did this [T]http://i.imgur.com/1cbHCnl.png[/T]

Inspired by [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531665&p=50926638&viewfull=1#post50926638"]Pretty Obscure[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MhbUrLm.jpg[/IMG] Imagine that on the header of every Mozilla webpage. :V

They're all awful, keep the old one.

[QUOTE=Sombrero;50925796]I'd go for this one [t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_D_protocol_1-1400x990.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I'd change the colors though, personally.

i really like this one and i don't see why everyone's calling [I]all[/I] of them shit [t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_E_wireframe_1-1400x990.jpg[/t] underrated imo

[QUOTE=Wowza!;50925778][T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_C_open_1-1400x990.jpg[/T][/QUOTE] Looks like a depressed robot that's trying its best to appear happy. :cry:

This is like when Google changed it's logo font, except this time instead of changing something iconic because "it's old" they're just replacing something that there's no reason to change with one of these various dumb designs that nobody really likes.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50926012]fixed the baskin robbins look with a better colour scheme [t]http://i.imgur.com/oOmQq6Q.png[/t][/QUOTE] I like this the best tbh

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;50926007]Jesus Mozilla just go full retard and take over the Netscape logo already, we know that's where you came from[/QUOTE] [img]https://vgy.me/wEvecq.png[/img] Honestly the :// logo looks really outdated already, the impossible M variants look the best for simplicity.

boy these are all pretty bad. and the ones that are alright either don't suit it at all or the colour scheme is awful. you gotta wonder whats going on with a company where they can't just hire one good designer and get a decent logo and go through the design motions internally rather than this shambles

[QUOTE=Wowza!;50925778] [T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_C_open_1-1400x990.jpg[/T] [/QUOTE] this legit looks like a logo for a failed kick starter

it has a genuinely repulsive colour scheme that makes me want to stop looking at it right away. its the awful shade of blue

[QUOTE=latin_geek;50926626]the Eye has a lot of potential for branding, because it comes with a nifty icon that's recognizable even if you drop the rest of the logo and the color: [t]https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/files/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_A_eye_3-1400x990.jpg[/t] Thing is, it looks a little childish. Mozilla isn't a tech startup. Protocol gives a very professional, big business look, and it represents what they're all about: the web and the tech related to it. It's not quite an IBM logo, but it's definitely the best out of the bunch.[/QUOTE] It makes me think of the Illuminati/all seeing eye/big brother which probably isn't the thing you want your browser associated with.

[QUOTE=Wowza!;50925778][T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_A_eye_1-1400x990.jpg[/T] [/QUOTE] [IMG]http://denstoredanske.dk/@api/deki/files/20966/=429234.501.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=gk99;50927217]This is like when Google changed it's logo font, except this time instead of changing something iconic because "it's old" they're just replacing something that there's no reason to change with one of these various dumb designs that nobody really likes.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the Google font change was also incorporated into a ton of little thumbnails and animations that permeates all of Googles products now. Such as: [t]http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2015/09/01/google_s_new_animated_logo_is_the_future_of_mobile_branding/google_logo.gif.CROP.original-original.gif[/t]

4, 5 and 7 look sick. 4 just because it's pretty smart based on the company's name and context, 5 because I really like geometric/low poly design, and 7 just because it's weird as fuck and different. All the others are OK but don't think they fit the brand well. They should probably go with 4.

[QUOTE=TheCronkofDestiny;50927052]i really like this one and i don't see why everyone's calling [I]all[/I] of them shit [t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_E_wireframe_1-1400x990.jpg[/t] underrated imo[/QUOTE] Because it's barely a logo. It's just a drawing of a random shape with words next to it. That barely qualifies as a logo.

[QUOTE=simkas;50928058]Because it's barely a logo. It's just a drawing of a random shape with words next to it. That barely qualifies as a logo.[/QUOTE] That random shape is a "M", you know, M like Mozilla. But if you failed to recognize it, then the logo did fail, and in a way you are right.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50928076]That random shape is a "M", you know, M like Mozilla.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but it's not as clear and instantly recognizable to work as that.

[QUOTE=simkas;50928080]Yeah, but it's not as clear and instantly recognizable to work as that.[/QUOTE] I agree, you replied just when I was adding that.