Mozilla Rebrands, Reaffirms its Mission To Protect Open Web Despite Advocacy Team Layoffs

[Cpt.Jank]

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Mozilla's entire advocacy team was caught in a round of layoffs, leading to speculation that Mozilla would be giving up its advocacy entirely, shifting to a more commercial focus. Now, with the announcement of Mozilla's new branding, aside from updating the brand's look, it seems as though the Firefox company wants to reassure users of its software that it is still dedicated to its mission to "keep the internet free, open, and accessible." The new branding strategy includes a new logo, typeface family, new icons, a T. rex mascot, and new colors.

The new branding push from Mozilla sees the brand move an appearance seemingly inspired by both its history and the text-based OS interfaces of the early years of computing. For the rebranding, Mozilla partnered with design firm JKR (Jones Knowles Ritchie), and the new branding features a cutesy DOS-style flag that doubles as a T. rex, hinting to past Mozilla logos. In the announcement of the rebranding, boldly titled "Reclaim the internet: Mozilla's rebrand for the next era of tech," Mozilla emphasizes that the new look is meant to convey the company's intention throughout its whole ecosystem of products. It seems as though Mozilla is trying to remind everyone that it's work towards a more open internet extends beyond just the advocacy team it recently laid off.



Mozilla says that its aim is to provide internet products and services that put privacy and people first:

In a time of privacy breaches, AI challenges and misinformation, this transformation is all about rallying people to take back control of their time, individual expression, privacy, community and sense of wonder.

It's been public knowledge for a while that Mozilla isn't in the best situation when it comes to finances, hence the need for the aforementioned layoffs, and the non-profit could be trying to incorporate some of the work previously done by the advocacy team into the regular company's operations, and the messaging of the new branding appears to be how it aims to do that.

At the heart of this transformation is making sure people know Mozilla for its broader impact, as well as Firefox. Our new brand strategy and expression embody our role as a leader in digital rights and innovation, putting people over profits through privacy-preserving products, open-source developer tools, and community-building efforts.

Read Mozilla's full briefing on the new brand identity on the organization's blog. Design firm JKR also has a write-up with some of the more artistic justifications included there.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Onasi]

Thanks, I hate it. Just like every modern “minimalist” redesign/rebrand. I understand the, uh, logic, I guess you can call it? But it looks ugly and the logo by itself just doesn’t make one think of Mozilla at all. Or anything, really. Looks like something a pump-and-dump startup would use before hoping to be bought out by a big firm.

 

[wNotyarD]

Thanks, I hate it. Just like every modern “minimalist” redesign/rebrand. I understand the, uh, logic, I guess you can call it? But it looks ugly and the logo by itself just doesn’t make one think of Mozilla at all. Or anything, really. Looks like something a pump-and-dump startup would use before hoping to be bought out by a big firm.

I mean, their "protocol" (moz://a) branding was pretty minimalist as well. But it at least looked good as it was essentially just monospaced text. And it DID relate to Mozilla's core business.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Just stick to what made me a Firefox user of about 20 years now: making a high-quality, extensible browser... let us deal with the "AI challenges" and the "misinformation" through our own means and devices, such as hosts lists, plugins, etc.

I don't much care for the corporate identity... in fact, if anything, Mozilla being a community effort is a big reason to use Firefox, otherwise just go and download Opera... any flavor of it. It's a better and faster browser than Firefox would ever hope to be; the only things that make Firefox what it is are its open-source transparency and extensibility.

And it DID relate to Mozilla's core business.

Exactly... it'll take more than a half-hearted "brand identity reimagination" to make them stop getting massacred by the Chromium engine browsers. The market share is 2.2% and declining, I increasingly feel like a Netscape Navigator user in the last days it's been around. I've had sites turn me away for using Firefox too...

 

[Onasi]

@Dr. Dro
People and FTC are hemming and humming about how Google maybe possibly should be broken up and the Search part spun off, but really, that’s not the reason fully for their web dominance. I genuinely believe that the entire Chromium project should be ripped out of their hands and fully placed under the control of a non-profit foundation. Companies can make shit based on that all they want, but Google genuinely has too much input and control and the bare Chromium browser feels like it’s deliberately being held back. Like, it still having no auto-update feature and a lack of codecs feels like a purposeful “don’t use that, normie user, use Chrome” ploy.

 

[Dr. Dro]

@Dr. Dro
People and FTC are hemming and humming about how Google maybe possibly should be broken up and the Search part spun off, but really, that’s not the reason fully for their web dominance. I genuinely believe that the entire Chromium project should be ripped out of their hands and fully placed under the control of a non-profit foundation. Companies can make shit based on that all they want, but Google genuinely has too much input and control and the bare Chromium browser feels like it’s deliberately being held back. Like, it still having no auto-update feature and a lack of codecs genuinely feels like a deliberate “don’t use that, normie user, use Chrome” ploy.

Really, it's not much different from the tactics that Microsoft were using back when Internet Explorer had a 95% market share. It was much easier to replace it with a free, open-source, feature-rich and snappier browser. Chrome's marketing was really trendy, and by "marrying" it to Android it really took off like a rocket.

The key issue is that Chromium is open-source free software (with a few blobs designed to work with it being either closed or source-available proprietary software), that really slows down any discussion on the insane dominance it has in the web browser market, since the "they're not pointing a gun to your head, are they" argument kicks in by default. The largest majority of alternate browsers, free, source-available or closed proprietary, from Brave to Opera to Vivaldi and yes, even Microsoft Edge all rely on Chromium... that leaves Firefox's Gecko web engine and Apple's WebKit as the alternatives.. The only reason WebKit stood up to Chromium is the low footprint for embedded applications (PlayStation uses it, as far back as the PS3, for example) and sheer volume of iOS devices out there where its use is enforced in both Safari and third-party browsers (including Firefox for iOS). Smaller engines, like Opera's Presto, are ancient history by now. To further complicate the whole "break up Google" proposal, they've already preemptively done so by making Google just one of Alphabet Inc.'s businesses... strengthening their grip and control on the situation.

There is one browser that I used to like which is a multi-engine solution called Lunascape, it can display webpages in Gecko, WebKit and Trident (which was Internet Explorer 11's engine) unfortunately it is proprietary and developed by a very small Japanese company which has exchanged hands recently (into a crypto corporation no less) and only receives updates very, very rarely, I think the last one is from June 2023 which is eons ago in internet time.

 

[dgianstefani]

Just stick to what made me a Firefox user of about 20 years now: making a high-quality, extensible browser... let us deal with the "AI challenges" and the "misinformation" through our own means and devices, such as hosts lists, plugins, etc.

I don't much care for the corporate identity... in fact, if anything, Mozilla being a community effort is a big reason to use Firefox, otherwise just go and download Opera... any flavor of it. It's a better and faster browser than Firefox would ever hope to be; the only things that make Firefox what it is are its open-source transparency and extensibility.



Exactly... it'll take more than a half-hearted "brand identity reimagination" to make them stop getting massacred by the Chromium engine browsers. The market share is 2.2% and declining, I increasingly feel like a Netscape Navigator user in the last days it's been around. I've had sites turn me away for using Firefox too...

I don't care for corporation's opinion of what "misinformation" is.

 

[AnotherReader]

Just stick to what made me a Firefox user of about 20 years now: making a high-quality, extensible browser... let us deal with the "AI challenges" and the "misinformation" through our own means and devices, such as hosts lists, plugins, etc.

I don't much care for the corporate identity... in fact, if anything, Mozilla being a community effort is a big reason to use Firefox, otherwise just go and download Opera... any flavor of it. It's a better and faster browser than Firefox would ever hope to be; the only things that make Firefox what it is are its open-source transparency and extensibility.



Exactly... it'll take more than a half-hearted "brand identity reimagination" to make them stop getting massacred by the Chromium engine browsers. The market share is 2.2% and declining, I increasingly feel like a Netscape Navigator user in the last days it's been around. I've had sites turn me away for using Firefox too...

Which sites turned you away for using Firefox? As for market share, that includes mobile where Android devices have Chrome or Safari as the default browser. For PCs, the actual market share is better: a bit over 6%. Again, that figure includes Macs where the likelihood of using Firefox is less than on WIndows.

 

[Daven]

I don't care for corporation's opinion of what "misinformation" is.

Yep, anyone can place the misinformation label on any facts one disagrees with or doesn’t jive with their own viewpoints.

 

[Onasi]

Really, it's not much different from the tactics that Microsoft were using back when Internet Explorer had a 95% market share. It was much easier to replace it with a free, open-source, feature-rich and snappier browser. Chrome's marketing was really trendy, and by "marrying" it to Android it really took off like a rocket.

I think the replacement part is the difficult one also. IE suffered from a lot of issues and even the less tech literate migrated to Firefox in droves. It was a no-brainer choice in a lot of situations. But with Chrome this is much more difficult because, well, all my disdain for Google tactics aside, Chrome is GOOD. It’s a very simple, fast and problem-free browser. Actually convincing someone used to it to switch is a very tough sell because the practical benefits are non-obvious.
The only reason Gecko and WebKit still survive is vague competition reasons for the former and sheer Apple stubbornness coupled with their significant pull for the latter.

@AnotherReader
That’s a fair point, but let’s be real - Firefox is mostly a tech nerds toy nowadays. Normies are either on Chrome or on whatever is the default browser for their device of choice. In case of desktops it’s increasingly Edge, which is just Chrome under another sauce, and I don’t think anyone can argue that MS dominance (potentially) over Google is any better.

 

[AnotherReader]

I think the replacement part is the difficult one also. IE suffered from a lot of issues and even the less tech literate migrated to Firefox in droves. It was a no-brainer choice in a lot of situations. But with Chrome this is much more difficult because, well, all my disdain for Google tactics aside, Chrome is GOOD. It’s a very simple, fast and problem-free browser. Actually convincing someone used to it to switch is a very tough sell because the practical benefits are non-obvious.
The only reason Gecko and WebKit still survive is vague competition reasons for the former and sheer Apple stubbornness coupled with their significant pull for the latter.

@AnotherReader
That’s a fair point, but let’s be real - Firefox is mostly a tech nerds toy nowadays. Normies are either on Chrome or on whatever is the default browser for their device of choice. In case of desktops it’s increasingly Edge, which is just Chrome under another sauce, and I don’t think anyone can argue that MS dominance (potentially) over Google is any better.

Of course, Firefox has probably always been a tech nerd's toy and even many of them now use Chrome like lemmings. As for the choice between Google and Microsoft, I'm not sure about you, but Google is very close to the top of my "consumer tech companies to avoid if possible" list. Its only competitor on that list is Meta.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Which sites turned you away for using Firefox? As for market share, that includes mobile where Android devices have Chrome or Safari as the default browser. For PCs, the actual market share is better: a bit over 6%. Again, that figure includes Macs where the likelihood of using Firefox is less than on WIndows.

View attachment 374571

There are lots of sites that disable features or turns you away for being on FF, for example, high-resolution video playback (>4K and/or HDR, or higher than 60 fps) on YouTube doesn't work in Firefox. Basically made with Chromium in mind now. Government sites have also been slowly but surely shying away from supporting it.

My source for the low market share was this... it's a bit old and been a while since I read it, but I wonder if the Firefox market share also accounts for its clone browsers (like GNU IceCat or Pale Moon)

The fall of Firefox: Mozilla's once-popular web browser slides into irrelevance

With its market share hitting a new low, can Firefox rise from the ashes or is this the end?

www.zdnet.com

 

[Onasi]

high-resolution video playback (>4K and/or HDR, or higher than 60 fps) on YouTube doesn't work in Firefox

Funny that, what a conky-dink, a video hosting site owned by Google locks away features from a browser not based on a Google led project. This is very shocking, I need to write to the Daily Mail immediately, old chap. Indeed.

 

[AnotherReader]

There are lots of sites that disable features or turns you away for being on FF, for example, high-resolution video playback (>4K and/or HDR, or higher than 60 fps) on YouTube doesn't work in Firefox. Basically made with Chromium in mind now. Government sites have also been slowly but surely shying away from supporting it.

My source for the low market share was this... it's a bit old and been a while since I read it, but I wonder if the Firefox market share also accounts for its clone browsers (like GNU IceCat or Pale Moon)

The fall of Firefox: Mozilla's once-popular web browser slides into irrelevance

With its market share hitting a new low, can Firefox rise from the ashes or is this the end?

www.zdnet.com

Have you tried switching user agent strings? That article's source only counts visits to US government websites. Statcounter, on the other hand, is based on sites across the world.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Thanks, I hate it. Just like every modern “minimalist” redesign/rebrand.

I don't care as long as FireFox and ThunderBird continue uninterrupted.

 

[bobsled]

Firefox was given piles of money by Google over a decade ago. They squandered it.

I have no interest in supporting a company that can’t manage money.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Have you tried switching user agent strings? That article's source only counts visits to US government websites. Statcounter, on the other hand, is based on sites across the world.

Yeah, even if you try to spoof Chrome, it doesn't work

It works on Edge, though

If colors are funky, that's just because HDR screenshots into SDR for the forum.

Firefox was given piles of money by Google over a decade ago. They squandered it.

I have no interest in supporting a company that can’t manage money.

Mozilla still takes millions yearly to make Google the default search engine. If anything, Google is what keeps Mozilla afloat, it's rather perverse if you think about it.

 

[Arkz]

Pointless and crappy looking. How very 2024.

 

[Nhonho]

When Google blocks the uBlock Origins extension, I'll switch to Firefox. I think a lot of people will do the same. If Mozilla blocks the extension too, I'll to use even a chinese browser with uBlock Origins.

 

[tommo1982]

I fail to see any reason in laying off people and then hiring a company to create a logo and set off on a marketing journey. Desktop Firefox remained intact for quite some time. Mobile Firefox went through such episode and for almost 2 years it was unusable.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I don't care for corporation's opinion of what "misinformation" is.

Just recently, Firefox offered to use AI to verify online product reviews. I was at Amazon looking at camera lenses, which the AI graded as suspect, even though I could tell the reviews were legit, and even had sample submissions from buyers. Then it graded printer reviews as mostly trustworthy, and I could tell there were a lot of fakes and dummy reviews from people who didn’t appear to even understand what they just bought.

 

[HOkay]

I just don't see any way to save Firefox at this point. I used to use it before Chrome got good, & I held out for a while, but as others have said, Chrome just works & that's ultimately what users care about.
These days I'm daily driving Edge on all devices just because I was curious if it was any good & it's been hassle-free so I haven't stopped using it. So I'm part of the problem, but I don't feel like it's up to me to fix it, as will 99.9% of users, so back to my opening point of I just don't see a way this turns around. Like high street shopping, I expect Firefox will be a rarity within a few years

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

If firefox actually intended to continue looking out for users, they wouldnt have gutted the privacy advocacy group. The rest of the identity politics? Yeah, dump them, they are a boat anchor made of hypocrisy and hatred that makes you $0 and costs you actual leadership. But the privacy group? They did actual good, fighting for our rights as internet users. Why gut them?

Oh, right, because Firefox is controlled opposition at this point.

For anyone that thinks Firefox cares about their end users, good time to put this here

Mozilla - Devil Incarnate

digdeeper.club

 

[scottslayer]

Is this another "quick look over there" attempt by Mozilla?
I clearly remember the last one involving stupid shit like this was when Mitchell Baker was running everything into the ground and it got revealed she was being paid tens of millions of dollars to do it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Firefox was given piles of money by Google over a decade ago. They squandered it.

Pointless and crappy looking. How very 2024.

I just don't see any way to save Firefox at this point. I used to use it before Chrome got good, & I held out for a while, but as others have said, Chrome just works & that's ultimately what users care about.
These days I'm daily driving Edge on all devices just because I was curious if it was any good & it's been hassle-free so I haven't stopped using it. So I'm part of the problem, but I don't feel like it's up to me to fix it, as will 99.9% of users, so back to my opening point of I just don't see a way this turns around. Like high street shopping, I expect Firefox will be a rarity within a few years

Is this another "quick look over there" attempt by Mozilla?
I clearly remember the last one involving stupid shit like this was when Mitchell Baker was running everything into the ground and it got revealed she was being paid tens of millions of dollars to do it.

We kick out a non-woke CEO, we subsequently bring in woke CEOs one after another... what did we expect was going to happen?

What's with all the pointless and misdirected hate? Find something better to do with your time people.

If firefox actually intended to continue looking out for users, they wouldnt have gutted the privacy advocacy group. The rest of the identity politics? Yeah, dump them, they are a boat anchor made of hypocrisy and hatred that makes you $0 and costs you actual leadership. But the privacy group? They did actual good, fighting for our rights as internet users. Why gut them?

Oh, right, because Firefox is controlled opposition at this point.

For anyone that thinks Firefox cares about their end users, good time to put this here

Mozilla - Devil Incarnate

digdeeper.club

The sheer size of that assassination piece is rivaled only by it's complete cluelessness. Truly impressive drivel. I've seen people shovel the poo before, but that article takes the cake.