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

-nevermind it's only about the Mozilla brand

[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] Looks like a band-logo, not a company.

can someone show me how it looks like a M? I just kinda see 2 right triangles smashed together .

[QUOTE=Maadz;50928557]can someone show me how it looks like a M? I just kinda see 2 right triangles smashed together .[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/oRBZFGq.png[/t]

[t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_B_connector_1-1400x990.jpg[/t] personally like this one the best of all the ones there needs some tinkering to look less like "morilla" but it's pretty out there. All the other seem outdated; : Wireframe one doesn't look professional and seems overly-serious : The weird "open" button doesn't even look like an open button, so sort of defeats the purpose of trying to incorporate that idea :Moz://a looks far too much like the 90's Microsoft logo. Too bland, the idea of keeping the M:// different colours to the rest of the word is interesting but the execution is meh : Impossible M looks a new range of clothing by Urban Outfitters; doesn't give the idea of "Massive privacy company"; introduces a lot of complexity with the sub-patterns : Fox tower is dreadful.

It would be cool if they picked Moz://a and launched a new protocol accessed via Moz://

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;50929265][t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_B_connector_1-1400x990.jpg[/t] [/QUOTE] Looks like a logo for a Mozambique 2024 Summer Olympics bid.

[QUOTE=Alexak75;50926799]An ominous lizard eye logo for a privacy-focused company? It's decent aesthetically but really?[/QUOTE] I thought that the Eye of Sauron could see all?

i've got your best logo right here [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Vo8oQf6.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50929506]i've got your best logo right here [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Vo8oQf6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] It even uses Green Is My Pepper to affirm Mozillas strong open-source stance. Give this man a medal

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;50929265][t]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_B_connector_1-1400x990.jpg[/t] personally like this one the best of all the ones there needs some tinkering to look less like "morilla" but it's pretty out there. All the other seem outdated; : Wireframe one doesn't look professional and seems overly-serious : The weird "open" button doesn't even look like an open button, so sort of defeats the purpose of trying to incorporate that idea :Moz://a looks far too much like the 90's Microsoft logo. Too bland, the idea of keeping the M:// different colours to the rest of the word is interesting but the execution is meh : Impossible M looks a new range of clothing by Urban Outfitters; doesn't give the idea of "Massive privacy company"; introduces a lot of complexity with the sub-patterns : Fox tower is dreadful.[/QUOTE] No way, that one is one the worst ones. Even knowing what it's supposed to spell it's not entirely easy to make it out, if you didn't know what it's supposed to be, there's no way you could tell what it actually spells.

mozilla losing relevancy and so decides to change their logo? hmm yes sounds legit meanwhile they have done nothing about the increasing user divide between them and Chrome

As plenty of people have said, they should stop mimicking Chrome and start actually improving instead. [QUOTE=hexpunK;50926056]Mozilla do a shitload of things outside of FF that nobody actually knows them for. In terms of applications they do have Thunderbird, a pretty solid email client. There's also Firefox OS, which just hasn't gone anywhere of note. A lot of their projects just kinda stagnate or straight up die (in the case of SeaMonkey). But they also contribute a reasonable amount of documentation for the HTML and JS spec, to the point that most other browsers just direct you to their wiki. Their efforts in creating a cross platform GUI markup has seen some use elsewhere. And they are actively pushing for more secure browsers, etc. Of all the logos the Moz://a one is probably the smartest one and actually reasonable one. The others are just kinda abstract shapes and colours for the most part...[/QUOTE] Didn't they threaten to halt development of Thunderbird?

[QUOTE=FFStudios;50929688]mozilla losing relevancy and so decides to change their logo? hmm yes sounds legit meanwhile they have done nothing about the increasing user divide between them and Chrome[/QUOTE] Mozilla isn't losing relevancy though and seeing as you haven't read the thread or its posts in it, mozilla != firefox. Do you call Chrome, Google? They're not "copying chrome" -- they're doing what their users want. If they were copying chrome, they'd limit their settings menu to 5 options (example: using IE's proxy settings meaning no socks support without an extension) [url=https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chrome/D4VMOXTxPwg/ngNUz6pBBgAJ]They'd remove features because of a minority demand[/url] Hell, Firefox and Chrome barely look similar. I really don't understand how they're similar other than how they both have tabs and an address bar. Firefox still has a search bar, a downloads list button, etc, and the entire UI is adjustable unlike Chrome. [editline]22nd August 2016[/editline] And no, they never threatened to halt the development of Thunderbird according to 3 minutes of googling. How can them wanting someone else to develop it to be able to devote more resources to it be construed as them threatening to kill it off?

[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] This ones bad because these types of playing-on-a-cube-form logos were overused as fuck and played out just like 2 years ago. It's a step back for design and would make them look not current.

[T]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/jb_Mozilla_D_protocol_1-1400x990.jpg[/T] [T]http://logok.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PayPal-logo-20071.png[/T] I can see where they got their inspiration ... Let's just brighten the colours a bit and make only two letters cursive! Who even made these, they all look so terrible :s

Go ahead and add my logo to the pile to terrible logos too. Stupid graphic design school, taught me jack shit. [img]https://i.imgur.com/huN9kvN.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50930158]Mozilla isn't losing relevancy though and seeing as you haven't read the thread or its posts in it, mozilla != firefox. Do you call Chrome, Google? [/QUOTE] if your brain doesn't immediately associate Google with Chrome, there is something seriously fucking wrong. whatever false equivalency you're making makes absolutely no sense

[QUOTE=Satane;50931330][img]http://i.imgur.com/pOMAk7m.png[/img] this is their logo, not the firefox logo like some of you thought.[/QUOTE] I've never seen that ever before. Even if it does look like a high school football logo it's better than these new ones.

[QUOTE=Satane;50931330][img]http://i.imgur.com/pOMAk7m.png[/img] this is their logo, not the firefox logo like some of you thought.[/QUOTE] i don't get what's wrong with the dinosaur, why aren't they keeping the dinosaur idea that's what i remember mozilla always having idk not their fault people haven't seen it

[QUOTE=Satane;50931330][img]http://i.imgur.com/pOMAk7m.png[/img] this is their logo, not the firefox logo like some of you thought.[/QUOTE] Considering how we never see the dino or "foundation" this still seems pointless to me

[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/oOmQq6Q.png[/thumb] [thumb]https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/539f3ffbecad044276726c01-960/amazon-com-logo.jpg[/thumb] :l

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50932046][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/oOmQq6Q.png[/thumb] [thumb]https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/539f3ffbecad044276726c01-960/amazon-com-logo.jpg[/thumb] :l[/QUOTE] We don't really have to be this pedantic regarding colors for example: [thumb]http://fullhdpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Microsoft-Logo-HD.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pEKSmwzm--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1414228815325188681.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=gk99;50931616]Considering how we never see the dino or "foundation" this still seems pointless to me[/QUOTE] Maybe this is part of the problem as to why they aren't as big as they once were. They lack visibility. Marketing is incredibly important.

[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] Combine this logo with IBM and you get Monsters Inc.

theyre all bad, but the wireframe one looks better

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50932046][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/oOmQq6Q.png[/thumb] [thumb]https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/539f3ffbecad044276726c01-960/amazon-com-logo.jpg[/thumb] :l[/QUOTE] more like [t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/fa/68/95/fa6895c3c200384f0dd8914386e1f871.jpg[/t]