Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Gizmodo: What the Hell Happened to Mozilla and Firefox? 2017-01-19 02:07:40 Post No. 101381
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Gizmodo: What the Hell Happened to Mozilla and Firefox? 2017-01-19 02:07:40 Post No. 101381
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: uafwlq0zsnia2vlhv9ue[1].jpg (35KB, 676x380px) Image search:
[Google]
![uafwlq0zsnia2vlhv9ue[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Om1z9sl.jpg "uafwlq0zsnia2vlhv9ue[1]")
35KB, 676x380px
Gizmodo: What the Hell Happened to Mozilla and Firefox?
Anonymous
2017-01-19 02:07:40
Post No. 101381
[Report]
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/introducing-mozillas-new-logo-moza-get/#slide-1
>Mozilla has a new logo. Maybe you’ve seen it before—the wordmark, which replaces the “ill” in “Mozilla” with the colon and twin slashes commonly found in URLs, was one of several design candidates the company floated last fall. That was unusual. When a big tech company unveils a new identity, it usually does so with a surprise announcement. There’s a splashy rollout, a how-we-did-it essay on Medium, and critiques from news outlets (like this one!) and the internet at large.
>Instead, Mozilla flipped the rebranding process on its head by sharing each step with the masses. The experiment was a response to the vitriolic state of online logo criticism. Rather than defend itself after the fact, Mozilla posted proposed logos from London firm Johnson Banks online, where anyone could comment. Which they did: The Mozilla and Johnson Banks teams reviewed around 3,000 comments during the five-month-long project.
...
http://gizmodo.com/what-the-hell-happened-to-mozilla-and-firefox-1791336285
...
>Only a logo designer circa 1997 would have thought this new brandmark was a good idea. Back then internet-based companies all insisted on including or alluding to their URL in the logo and name. “Because it has a portion of URL embedded in the middle of the logo, you know this must be some kind of internet company,” Tim Murray, Mozilla’s creative director, told Wired in an article posted today, in 2017.
>Yes, Tim. That was a good plan twenty years ago when most people thought the internet was just a link beyond AOL’s welcome screen. But we live in 2017 Tim, and instead of sounding or looking cool, Mozilla just appears painfully out of touch.
...
>>
why should i care again?
>>
>>101390
You shouldn't. A lot of people who still use firefox on 4chan might.
>>
>>101393
I use firefox and their new logo, while dumb, doesn't concern me as much as whatever they plan on doing next to the actual browser.
>>
>>101393
i also use forefox. i will repeat my question: why should i care? it is just a fucking logo
>>
>>101381
Seems as if they're retarded, unfocused and incapable of communication in plain english. They have to make everything cutesy/wutesy pansy.
>>
>>101381
Oh fuck off. It's honest and tasteful.
>muh current year
They make a fucking Internet browser. Not everything has to have hip and flashy branding.
>>
>>101381
This is what happens when you "ask" your competent CEO with a vision to leave over a retarded controversy and can't replace them.
>>
>>101381
>Mozilla just appears painfully out of touch.
pretty sure they chose it because it was the most liked,
at least thats what it seemed from the few comments i saw when this first started.
the rest of the choices were pretty dogshit anyway.
also
>its 2017
>>
>>101381
I miss the dinosaur.
>>
>>101381
2012 tier lack of imagination.
>>
>>101381
I like it. Whats the craic, ive seen worse logos.
>>
Still no fix for those memory leaks that have plagued the browser since 2006... LETS SPEND TIME & ENERGY REBRANDING!
Fucking pleb tier shit browser.
>>
>>103157
And yet they wonder why they only have 10-15% market share in a market where the product is offered free to anyone.
>>
>>103162
>>101425
>>102757
Actually im concerned over what they're actually going to do with the browser too.
For me Firefox is actually pretty slow, not quite IE tier but its not as fast as it used to be.
Also whenever I save files/images it doesnt engage the standard windows file renaming scheme when there's a file of the same name in the folder.
If I wanna save food images from YELP for example they are all named "o.jpg" in their native web folder so Firefox literally has to ask me to come up with a new name for each one when im saving it.
Slows down research a fuckton.
So I use Opera because its fast, its got good extensions, it saves files neatly like chrome. But its not Chrome either despite being just as fast.
> Chrome doesnt even work on my computer, for whatever reason ive tried to install it but the browser crashes without explanation shortly after loading. Besides its literally been proven to spy on you.
Still sometimes I find Opera wont do the job or it goes on the fritz for awhile... and thats when I load up Firefox to get things done.
I wonder how bad things are going to get for Firefox...
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1