NyjilJun 22 2009 5:28 AM
nice information.
Ben GrbbinJun 22 2009 6:08 AM
I think the changes are noticeable, but maybe, only perhaps to those with an eye for design. The new logo cuts a really fresh and more detailed look at large size, smaller maybe less so but its nice to see that Mozilla are always looking at ways in which they can improve. I love how they are completely flexible, and not stuck in their ways like say, Microsoft!
OsamaJun 22 2009 8:12 AM
I agree with Ben, although when seen on the taskbar the changes are moot, the new large version is a definite and noticeable improvement!
Andrew MJun 22 2009 9:44 AM
If the goal was to \"refresh\" they didn\'t achieve it. Where they cleaned up and simplied the equally made areas more complex (hair & fire) and muddied (darker orange). The end result, at the size 90% of users will see (32x32), is a darker and less identifiable logo. Head to head the original logo uses color better to achieve readability especially around the foxes head.
Does Mozilla have nothing more important to do and spend money on?Zoltan SebestyenJun 22 2009 9:47 AM
A BIG step ahead. Awesome work. Congrats!
robbJun 22 2009 11:37 AM
it\'s almost pass unnoticed to me.
it looks better, but do they a real purpose for this slight change ?McConsumerJun 22 2009 11:39 AM
Lame.I can appreciate the finer detail of the hairs, and the different lighting, and even the continent shift,but just because there is more detail doesn\'t make it better.If anything they should be aiming to make the image LESS complex instead of more.
That said I do like that they took out the perfectly round fox part and added some flamey type texture.
All in all, it\'s not bad, but why bother?MaxJun 22 2009 1:47 PM
Completely agree with Andrew. Also wished they had stuck with the crazier flames idea in the latest conceptual rendering (bottom middle)...though the fictionalized geography looks a lot better now.
KevinJun 22 2009 1:51 PM
Removing that little yellow highlight on the bottom right was a mistake. It looks bland now. Definitely lost some character.
David CarsonJun 22 2009 2:43 PM
Why bother?They should work on streamlining their bloated browser.
TurbineSeaplaneJun 22 2009 2:46 PM
What a waste of time.
It\'s basically the same.
The ultimate \"who cares\" sort of change.WMSJun 22 2009 2:59 PM
=O
its true i can see the icon on my tool bar...
(:
niceepostalJun 22 2009 5:27 PM
Does anybody actually give a fuck?
btnJun 22 2009 5:53 PM
Dear Mozilla, please add support for H.264 instead of f\'ing around with an icon that was frankly better before the redesign. Thanks!
AdamJun 22 2009 6:11 PM
They spent 2 years working on those changes?
mattJun 22 2009 7:04 PM
the conceptual rendering is the coolest one.. the first one has a cool cartoonish look to it, but i like the new ones shine on the earth catches the eye better..
Yael K. MillerJun 23 2009 12:39 PM
I actually like the new logo less.I can put up with the fox head change but the tail/fire change is baffling.It now looks less like fire and more like a tail.I like the fire looking like fire because to me it reads symbolically as burning away the old junk (IE) and replacing it with the new and better (Firefox).
ZUUJun 23 2009 6:52 PM
No me habia dado cuenta del change.
Paris VegaJun 24 2009 10:32 AM
I think I have that Bible... I\'m torn between the 2 logos.
Greg KJun 25 2009 2:29 PM
To me, the old logo on small sizes looks much better. Lighter yellow says *fire* more clearly.
Gary R BoodhooJun 29 2009 5:54 PM
significant effort spent of decreasing returns. Visual disctinction between the logos seems apparent when displayed at 256 x 256 - less so in real world usage.
The bible illustration is awesome though.
like anyone cares -\"firefox\" isn\'t a fox. Its a red panda.Torbjørn Vik LundeJun 30 2009 3:28 AM
I think this for the most part is a change for the worst.
The oversatured colors will look dated a lot faster than the original did. (Did it really ever look dated?).
And as others have mentioned: more details? Why can\'t people appriciate simplicity? (My impression is that most people *do* appriciate simplicity, unless it is their own logo. Then they suddenley want it to be complex.)
One good thing about the logot though: much sharper and crisper in small sizes.SuperpandaJul 1 2009 3:53 AM
Good !!
Fleur205Jul 2 2009 1:38 PM
I prefer the brighter yellow tail...why did they waste time + money on this?...could have devoted those energies towards fighting poverty or some other social good.
inigafalcoJul 4 2009 8:44 AM
I knew there was something different when I upgraded to 3.5! The previous version was easier to identify because it had more contrast. Pity they took away the fire from the fox.
flecthoJul 10 2009 4:58 PM
I only noticed it because I have 3.1 and 3.5 both installed and in my quickstart. It it wasn\'t for that i probably never would have noticed.Although now that I noticed I do think it looks better.
Juan TejedaJul 12 2009 12:58 AM
I\'ve notice the change a few days ago, but didn\'t really gave it too much thought. The new (refreshed) looks pretty good, specially we small.
rocketJul 22 2009 9:49 PM
yeh, agree with andrew. old was better for use as a small logo as most people will see it. And dumb. why spend thousands on this? just a waste. the best you can hope for is that it looks the same... then why upgrade? is this a fresh new look? no. and your old look was doing so well too!
AndrewdAug 26 2009 11:35 PM
Why? I dont like the new hightlight on the top of the globe
it is distractingHonneykeepaJan 5 2010 7:07 AM
The new logo is better than the initial one. The thing I liked the most is that the new tail embraces the globe, so both objects gained more volume and roundness.