Slashdot Mirror
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
sgarrity writes "I've written some recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's project and product line. I argue that the Mozilla Project should adopt a simple, strong, consistent visual identity for the Mozilla products including consistent icons across applications that mesh with the host operating system. Read Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 and let us know what you think."
Mozilla could use a good branding and marketing scheme to take part of the browser market for IE.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
The main reason you'd want to brand is to leave an imprint in the mind of somebody who's a potential consumer. People who are already using Mozilla probably won't be affected by the presence or absence of branding -- it's likely been branded enough for them. Unifying it might mean dropping the dinosaur connotations or the magical bird connotations, one for the other. But really, at this point, why bother?
Unless this is going to be part of a bigger marketing strategy by Netscape or AOL or whoever...?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
You should come up with operating system that everyone uses and then get like 95% of the desktop market, and then bundle the browser with the OS and call them inseparable.
Seemed to work for the case studies I've investigated.
Though, yes brand name recongition helps with any such advertising, of course.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Unfortunately, workalikes are going to make consistency difficult.
:) Make it an option to gently 'replace' IE and Outlook Express. Replace the shortcuts, import favorites, e-mails, and contacts by default. Import Server Settings, proxies, the whole nine yards.
Actually, Camino is really the only workalike left around. By workalike I mean is built from the same source code base, customized. I guess my terminology isn't very good here.
Standarize icons and names. Make them visually appealing. Make the default styles blend in with the OS/Window Manager.
I have to laugh, one example was of the two Mozilla apps placed prominently on the Start Menu right where IE and Outlook Express are by default. Is this an option in a full installer? If not, put it there.
Then people like myself, who run an ISP can standardize on Mozilla and when I send my installers out I can have them install the app. Even better, have a custom installer file so I can add in OUR servers and make them default in the Mail application.
Now no matter what platform my installers run into, they can install my Mozilla package and have the right settings. Minimalistic training required.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Branding is a cruel practice, and should only be used when necessary.
We need to weigh the pros and the cons. Mozilla will undergo a great deal of pain when we apply the branding iron and will no doubt scream in agony. However, we will be able to separate it from the other browsers when it escapes out onto the open range.
The server is getting pounded now, so it's tough to see the examples, but the icons and look for the Mozilla applications have always bugged me.
The Mozilla Thunderbird icon is nice in that it finally represents something related to the purpose of the application, but I find it too subtle in a lot of ways. Especially on a small Windows toolbar, where it looks a lot like a slipcase.
A visual facelift would be wonderful, though. Maybe get the Cute guy to work on it a bit... he's already proven himself competent, and having one person working on all the art wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
...isn't it?
Shouldn't this kind of efforts be aimed at the consumer projects forked off mozilla and not on mozilla itself? IMHO mozilla should be about robust technology.
As long as things are kept simple, light and work well then branding will only help. If that helps then I'm for it
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's product and project line - by Steven Garrity
Summary
This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.
As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.
Keep What Works
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.
Lose What Doesn't Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.
Products, Projects, and the Foundation
The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term "Mozilla" is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.
The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.
They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.
Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People can't use software that they don't know how to ask for. People can't tell others about software that they don't know what to call.
The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.
Version Numbers
The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.
The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.
The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:
* Mozilla Browser
* Mozilla Mail
* Mozilla Calendar
* Mozilla Composer
The Visual Identity So Far
As the software produced by the Mozilla project stabilizes and matures, so too should its visual identity. The Mozilla 1.0 suite was generally intern
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Branding is what you do when you haven't got a better product than the other guy, but you want people to think you do.
I agree that we should make Mozilla's icons a bit more consistent across applications and platforms, but I think the Mozilla lizard is just fine as far as logos go.
When you're going up against Microsoft and its built-in IE, you're fighting a losing game; the proper way to beat Microsoft is to play a different game than the one they want to play, because they own the field, the ball and they set the rules.
"Branding" is just another word for shining sh*t and calling it gold.
If you want to improve usability you can do it by using different icons for Mozilla itself and files associated with Mozilla (for example html-files). Currently I have Mozilla and a html file added to my Windows coolbar and they both use the same icon. InternetExplorer has the face "e" for IE itself, and a document with the "e" in front for associated files. Please do something similar for future versions of Mozilla. I really want to see from the icon if a file is a html file or the Mozilla executable.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
branding is a great idea; however, it's an all-or-nothing game. Mozilla must either commit 100% to developing brand identity or not commit at all. Consistency in branding communicates something deeper to the public: a consistent brand image communicates [whether true or not] consistency in the entity itself. It shows that the entity has a common goal toward which they are working. When people see the brand's logos, they immediately recognize it as familiar. In order for Mozilla to be successful (which I hope / know it will be), the public must be able to identify it as one specific piece of software (or software package). For example, when people see a Mozilla icon/logo, I should be able to say, "oh, that's THE Mozilla." They shouldn't need to wonder, "hmmm... that looks kinda like a Mozilla icon I saw a long time ago, but I'm not sure." Consistent branding works: just think of the logos/icons for all of the following entities: Nike; Microsoft; Coca-Cola; Pepsi; AOL.
Give Mozilla a unique selling proposition - something that you can tell a prospective user about why they must switch from IE to Mozilla, i.e., "You should switch to Mozilla because it does X", where X is something obviously good, and not easily done with IE. For 95% of prospective users, X !=
- cross-platform
- thwarts the evil M$
- is a really cool open-source project
- and so forth
Lose the dragon. It's difficult enough to introduce something new into a corporate environment, and mythical firebreathing critters are of no help. Doesn't have to be boring - just not too strange.
RTFA, Mozilla 2.0 *IS* Firebird 1.0
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
Given the current mechanics of software distribution and product awareness, I'd argue that a bundling approach to the Mozilla suite/browser would be more effective than looking for a replacement of the red lizard and the like. The lizard is dead; long live the lizard!
As long as I can smash all the bars up in one small line. There is nothing more that I hate than having 15 bars covering half the screen with jumbo icons such that I cannot even see the page I'm wanting to look at.
I have File-Help, the back, forward, stop, and refresh buttons (all with no text & small icons) address bar(no idiotic go button to click), and google way off to the right to stop the popups. One line and the rest of the screen is web page.
Something along those lines is what I want from Mozilla, without having to create my own theme to get it. And since it's so small and inconspicuous it can be in black and white with icons drawn in mspaint freehand with a mouse.
They should NEVER have bothered with the developer names Firebird, Thunderbird, etc. From the start they should have called them Mozilla Browser, Mozilla Mail, etc. They have lost fast name recognition until the change does occur, and they have created a lot of confusion. I remember telling a lot of people to switch to Mozilla. I didn't tell anyone about Firebird because I knew the name wouldn't stick for long. Others on the other hand, have been name-dropping Firebird all over the place. Imagine when it's changed back. You will have Netscape, Mozilla, Firebird, Mozilla Firebird, etc. No one should be expected to keep up with the names like this. Most people will just stick to I.E. and not bother with avaluating what looks like too many choices to them
Is it like Mod-zilla rhymes with Godzilla, or is it more like Mozzerella, or is it something else entirely?
I hear most often pronounced Moe (of the Larry and Curly kind) and zilla, like z then illa as in gorilla.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Interestingly, I had requested a press kit or at least press-ready logos for Mozilla awhile back for inclusion in a presentation I'm writing. Got a quick response saying it sounded feasible, but nothing since. I ended up scouring the web and finding a lizard picture but it wasn't the best quality for the resolution I need.
... send out a press release along with a link to the press kit. Heck, if you can get a contribution pool (I think wire releases are something like $100), make a press release each time a major release occurs.
If Mozilla had a full press kit explaining the project and including press-ready logos I think they'd see more coverage (and more serious coverage) of their package in the mainstream press.
Additionally, it is quite inexpensive to send out a press release over the newswires. When the Thunderbird/Firebird products are 1.0'ed (or 2.0'ed)
It won't make front page headlines, but it would be alot better than the current situation.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
The real problem with browser branding is that currently people fail to see the browser as something which should be branded. It's a utility product that allows you to view sites, and that's about it. Who cares what's beneath?
By establishing IE as a client-run COM control, Microsoft only further implemented that idea. You can hardly brand something that people view as a tool.
For example, what sports cars do you have in your garage? Ferrari or Porsche I'd assume. And what's the brand of your kitchen sink? Eeeh, who cares, some crap made in China and purchased at Home Depot. The same with the browser - when the sites are more or less the same, and it's the sites you care about, who cares what brand the browser is.
Nader-2004
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... choosing a logo that isn't an obvious rip off of the logo of the Toronto Raptors. Uncanny similarity, don't you think?
I'm shocked and awed that the Raptors haven't filed a suit against them yet.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
(Slightly redundant now but...) In Firebird 0.7, middle mouse scrolling is now built in. Also, the address bar has worked exactly like Windows for a while. Firebird forms and controls also look and act like the native widgets for 2K and XP.
Try Firebird. You'll be surprised how much better than Mozilla it is.
Never underestimate the power of fiber.
What the heck are you talking about?
I'm running WinXP here, with Mozilla 1.5 and IE 6.0. Seems to me you got it totally backwards.
Mozilla 1.5: 1 click selects all, another click places the cursor, double-click selects a word.
IE 6.0: 1 click selects all, another click places the cursor, double click selects the whole line again - there is no way to select just a word, afaik
Branding goes hand-in-hand with a large marketing strategy designed to get that brand into the mind of the consumer. How does Mozilla accomplish this, exactly?
At the moment, they don't, but this is precisely what needs to be done. Brand the image and increase the word-of-mouth.
But it doesn't have to be. Anyone contributor with some free time can do simple things that would help -- common icons, logos, etc. The entire image doesn't need to be reworked, but small things can be.
But how many people out there, if you were to ask them what a little green chameleon makes them think of, would say Suse?
The same applied to all logos out there at one point. McDonald's? Nike? MS Windows? Obviously, only someone familiar with the company will identify the logo. But make that logo something memorable (or easier to remember, in any case), and more people will want to find out what it is.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see how this would be a bad idea outright for the Moz team.
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Many developers do care.
I know I am a lot more interested in contributing my limited free time to a project if lots of people are actually using the thing, so I don't feel like I've wasted my time making something that is more or less irrelevant outside my little geek circle. For me it is far more satisfying to develop things with wide usage.
And of course the other thing....a lot of the benefit of having mozilla out there is in helping keep micorsoft in check (as is the case with linux and other open source things). The more people using mozilla, the more effective it is.
I strongly disagree with you.
Mozilla has replaced my browser, and the browser of all my friends (all ten of them! woo!) and relatives because of one simple fact: it's faster.
Mozilla will never die because it is not some company that lives off of profits. I believe that even if no donations are made to the MF, the applications shall continue to prosper and thrive in the open-source and practical communities.
Plain and simple: Mozilla roxors.
Insert clever one liner here.
Put Mozilla stickers all over San Francisco
Dress people up in Mozilla suits and send them screaming through New York City
Mozilla streakers at sporting events.
A Mozilla based reality show.
Have Mozilla claim their source code is in Linux
Pay companies to give them unrealistic bench marks.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Coca-cola
Redhat
Target
Lucent Technologies
Pizza Hut
KFC
yeah, no big players there.
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
IIRC, a judge declared that the -zilla suffix was not an infringment, and had become a ubiquitous bit of culture.
We recently moved all 100+ users in our company to Mozilla 1.4 (from IE; score one for the Rebellion). Most of our users are highly non-technical, and the overall repsonse to Mozilla has been very favorable. People really like the logo, and it seems to stick in their minds. Our major issues right now are getting the calendar to work properly and roaming profiles. If we could take care of those 2 things, we would have a basically problem-free product.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You want to introduce users to Mozilla by clandestinely downloading it? What kind of customer loyalty do you hope to gain? One of the things that makes Mozilla different than IE is the constant care and attention that they give to their users. Your "clandestine" means do not do that, resorting to means only used by script kiddies and spammers.
I've read through a good chunk of the replies here, and I keep coming across people saying "well you can change icons like this", "or do a splash screen like that." etc. The problem is, is that 90% of the computer users simply want to install, and be done with it and see nothing but a desktop icon. They don't want to go changing icons, or splash screens, or whatever. That's what this author is trying to get at. He makes a good point about the computer geeks and their clever naming, etc. It seems as if programmers have this holier-than-thou attitude. "If you don't like something, you should change it yourself or not use it." I know that it is a hobby to most people and there is no commercial gain to be had. It's almost like OSS (or whatever you want to call it) is like old school punk rock. You want the recognition, but you always fear being called a sellout. In the software world, you want to have this really great piece of software that is free and takes over the world and throws Microsoft off its pedestal. But at the same time, you don't want to conform to the game they are playing. Yes, people often don't know about non-MS ways of doing things on a computer, but Microsoft has done a halfway decent job at making a computing experience consistent to the average Joe computer user. And so people come to expect that out of others. I personally am willing to do things a slightly harder, or different way. I know that when I use free software, that things may be a little quirky, or there may be some weird fixes that I have to implement to get it work all the way. I've made that choice, but there are many out there who won't/can't/don't make it. They just want it to work out of the box for a million years without a hitch.
Yes, they actually do.
Anyway do yourself (and your gf) a favor and just turn off the cookie-paranoia.
BTW, most people I've shown Mozilla were very impressed with tabbed browsing, it's definitly a feature a lot (of course not all, but definitely many non-techies) like.
based on past history ;)
as opposed to future history
sorry I couldn't resist.
Well, I'm a professional graphic designer... so here's my take on this.
Good logos are very very simple. Good logos can be boiled down a strong one or two colored silhouette built with simple lines and shapes. Moreover, good logos are clearly recognizable at both small and large sizes.
The human brain reads and interprets simple shapes very quickly. Furthermore, the brain remembers and recalls simple shapes faster then complex graphics. This is, more or less, a psychological fact.
When you take a glance at a good simple logo it gets stuck in your head. Even if you've only seen it once, and you can't quite pin-point the company associated with it, there's a good chance it will seem "familiar" to you. Familiarity is essential to a good brand. People like to use things they feel familiar with... even if their sense of familiarity is coming from a near subconscious level.
It should also be noted that simple logos are easier to slap on everything. They are easier to print, it's easier to use as decoration, etc etc.
Honestly, Tux is not a very good logo. Most people don't know what that orange and black rendered penguin is all about (trust me, I guarantee you they don't). It's only the geeks like us who know what Tux is. Common people remember the RedHat logo, or the Suse logo... but not tux. If Tux's shape was simplified (kind if like what IBM did with it http://www.humanist.de/erik/rza/ibmlinux.jpg ) it would be much more recognizable to the general public.
And as for Mozilla. Well, Mozilla currently has that lizard head and the "M." Both are fairly simple (think the lizard could be simplified some more though), yet Mozilla.org doesn't stick with them. They don't place these logos all aspects of their products, they keep creating new icons and splash screens, etc. Mozilla.org needs to work on their branding. They need to pick one general logo, and they need to boldly place it everywhere.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
1. Take your basic product name - ie, "Mozilla".
2. Get permission from a celebrity to put their name in front of it.
3. Put next year's number on the end.
4. Add the letter's "X", "XP" or some abbreviation
with an "X" in it.
Therefore, Mozilla 2.0 should really be -
Madden Mozilla 2004 SSX
As boring as Windows already is, I certainly don't want to add Mozilla to list of yet another boring app.
I think one of the reasons why Mozilla is so great is absence of marketers. All the stupid buzzwords, and spin tactics they use to try to sell a product are what turn me off on a product, and I think there are many like me.
I have convinced many people to switch to Mozilla simply by showing them the features (tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, form management, etc). After that I leave it up to them. So far I have seen bout 95% of those people move to Mozilla because they like the features and not the branding.
Netscape was branded and look where it ended up.
One item that I did not see mentioned specifically but was marginally addresses was simple icon consistancy within an app. This applies to the Windows version as well in the latest distributions that I have seen. The icons used on the panel (in gnome, I forget what Windows and KDE call it) are not the same as the icons that are distributed for the app itself. Right now on debian I am still getting a dragon in the red star for icon used in the Gnome menu, but the panel is using the split with an M on the upper left and a Netscape style ship wheel to the lower left. I could live with any consistancy, and perhaps it will need some help from the package builders. If I had a choice I would probably like something like the M used for the browser on OSX, but anything clean, recognizable, and consistant would be good.
like g-a-r-y, only different
Here is a reason why Linden Hall School has chosen Mozilla lately - Windows XP Home. Why? Well we use ISA with authentication as our proxy server. This enables access to various age/class groups to the Internet. The problem is - in order for there to be pass-through authentication your OS has to be a member of the MS Domain.
This never used to be an issue until XP Home. XP Home can't be joined to the domain - so all these girls that come here get a never-ending request box for authentication whenever they attempt to use their XP Home-installed home computers.
It's not that MS couldn't make this work for us (caching domain authenticated logins) - it's that they don't want to. Proof? Mozilla doesn't have a problem caching this information one time. All a student has to do is fill in the info once, check the 'save password' option, and they're good to go. IE can't do this. If you use anything that includes an MS domain authentication, it will conveniently forget it.
My only wish is that I could get Moz to default to that authentication in 'options' so that the student wouldn't even have to push the 'enter' key.
Again, thanks Moz devs!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
In my experience, most Windows users don't use Mozilla because they never heard of it (at least, the ones I teached Mozilla never went back to IE). Some users are actually willing to pay for spam filters, popup blockers, download managers and tabbed browsing.
I want to put a box in my homepage that looks for MSIE user-agents and displays something like "Are you using Internet Explorer? Did you know that there's a better browser with popup blocking and download management included? Try Mozilla! (link to end-user website)".
The Mozilla folks seems to agree with me on this, but there's still a barrier: English. Windows users worldwide are used to their fully localized environment, and afraid of anything in foreign languages. The language packs are too buried in the site. Mozilla's new user-oriented website is a great idea, but there should be localized versions of it, with easily accessible downloads of localized software.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
I think you are right about non-geeks not wanting a hole lot of change. So configure mozilla to behave more or less like IE, and your girlfriend wont know the difference. Except in time she will get used to not having annoying pops all over the place. I think you are making a big mistake by letting her in on the secrets of cookies and - perhaps - giving her a confusing interface, which doesnt look like the one she knows. If she is anything like my girlfriend (or my father or most my non-geek friends) she just wants the damn thing to work and be able to use it. And now, please. Mozilla should do what apple has done with Safari. Almost no buttons, a stylish and simple design. And it doesnt default to an absolute geek-page (even containing the unholy word "compiled"). Geeks are good people. But they tend to design programs like they want them, and not how their girlfriends want them. And mozilla is definately designed by geeks :-)
The Mozilla "dinosaur" theme is older than the Raptors. Netscape was using the "Mo-zilla" character on it's site as early as Fall of '94, which, incidentally, was the same time the Raptors were having a contest to design their logo.
And at the time, they looked nothing alike anyway (Moz was green and anthromorphic).
Over time, the green guy logo evolved with the Moz project, notably turning Red (almost as a joke) to revel in the socialist nature of the Mozilla.org foundation when Gecko went open-source. It got pretty silly, Soviet-inspired designs with stars, sickles, and even fur hats.
I guessed the like the image of a Red, more realistic looking dino, with the flames and everything. I don't think it was because Mozilla.org members are all Toronto fans (Bulls I might believe).
And since no one could confuse a web browser with a basketball team in the marketplace anyway, I don't think we'll be seeing any trademark infrigment suits anytime soon.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I thought that the strongest new brands in a market with name recognition is to be the opposite of said brand. Pepsi's market share rose when it had it's "New Generation" campaign (implying that the old standard, Coca-cola, was the Old Generation). Avis car rental saw a gigantic increase with it's "We try Harder" [than the other companies]. Burger King versus McDonalds. Fox versus the Big Three. Heck, Linux versus Windows.
Consumers seem to think in simple dualities. There is the iconic brand... and then there is the one that is the anti-brand.
The problem for Mozilla? It is a product that is nigh identical to IE. Functionally they are the same (with only minor variations and where it differs siginficantly [that you need to do a third-party install] isn't a major selling point). To some extent it's the difference between a Chevy and Pontiac, not a Harley and a Honda.
What is music when you despise all sound?
My time is precious, and I need to spend it using the application, not modifying the application.
I believe that was the offensive passage. Ignoring developers, demanding they make things better for you while not being willing to do any work yourself is a common attitude that is affecting a lot of projects (Note, you is a general y'all, not YOU).
Anything is possible given time and money.
I'm sure you do realize that mozilla and IE save bookmarks/favorites differently. IE uses individual files for each favorite, where as mozilla uses one file that is basically a webpage itself to hold all of your favorite website needs. There just isn't a practical way for mozilla to use IE's bookmarks if you consider how many profiles mozilla is run on that DON'T have IE.
With that said, you can still find some free wizards to in various places.
If you use the Luna * theme for Mozilla Firebird, run some special customizations with the UI, it'll look EXACTLY like IE (put the location bar in it's own dialog, add a go button, get rid of the search bar, switch the stop and refresh buttons, add the bookmarks and history button, and you've almost got yourself a direct copy (without the sponsored media button and a search button -- but you already have a search bar that you got rid of))
Making toolbars moveable has been slated for AFTER Mozilla Firebird 1.0, so at least you know they are on it. But there are so many programs that don't have moveable toolbars that your argument is invalid anyway.
Regarding making a non-Microsoft Internet Explorer, I think that is a horrible idea. If you can't get used to the Options dialog in Mozilla Firebird, then you don't deserve to be called a teckie. I know some pretty slow people that fell right into that, and away from IE's checkbox heaven.
*Luna does not yet run under MF 0.7. It does run under 0.6, though.
Get Firefox!
I think IE loses the browser domination the day Sony ships the Playstation 3 (with a non-IE browser, which will probably be Mozilla).
Well, that depends on how visible the browser is.
OK, I accept that a greater number of hits by a Moz based browser would force sites (banks especially) to support Moz, but in the wider context of this discussion - which is about branding and Moz having a strong brand identity - this isn't necessarily true.
If Sony integrate the browser correctly, the only brand which will be visible is the Sony brand - PS3 users won't care what they're surfing with, all they'll care about is that they are surfing. Essentially, the browser vanishes.
Microsoft have picked up on this too - hence the line that IE6 is the last browser all future browsing capability being integrated with Windows. IE will vanish, but browsing will be accessible from explorer/outlook/word or however they implement it.
From the "Joe Sixpack" of view, having a "browser" as a seperate application begins to look like an optional and unecessary extra and a strong brand just serves to emphasise its "seperateness".
Right off the bat, from reading the headline, this article seems to miss the point. When looking to the future, Mozilla Firebird should be the focus. Firebird will eventually lose the controversial name and be simply 'Mozilla Browser.' This, along with Thunderbird (soon to be 'Mozilla Mail') are really the future of Mozilla much more than the old Mozilla suite which is reaching 2.0.
Here's the Mozilla branding road map. Lets hope Mozilla sticks to this plan. I really think it is the best route for future development.
Remember the audience you're speaking to. This is a demanding crowd here. We are the types to complain when someone tries to set a cookie in our browser when all we want to do is read an article. I've never understood this. I too am a cookie conspiracy theorist and deny cookies to the end of days.
I admit there are times though when cookies are useful (e.g. e-commerce, user preferences, etc.), so I'll allow cookies where they are warranted. In Firebird or Mozilla, that means dancing through a couple of menus to sway these settings. I'd love a little switch say on the status bar that quickly allows me to toggle between a "read-only" mode where no cookies or tracking can take place and a less strict browsing mode that allows cookies, etc. I know I can be tracked by IP address, but goddamn cookies all the same.
I mean 95% of the time I just want to read some nouns and verbs and to hell with everything else.
the mozilla logo designer was a huge Raptors fan, and thus was so inspired. I think you're just trying to grab attention with controversial statements.
The red dinosaur design was adopted to satirize the supposed communist nature of open source.
This is the original post by Jamie announcing the open-sourcing of Mozilla. Communism joke from the beginning. Hehe. This is the first appearence of the red lizard, which he credits to Shepard Fairey of BLK/MRKT, who has done, among other commercial ventures, the whole wacky Andre the Giant has a posse/OBEY thing.
This one was a freebee. If you think it looks suspiciously like the Raptors logo, then he's to blame. But have you looked at the two side by side? Moz has a more imposing profile with cool scales down his neck, while the Raptors dino is sleeker, with a different profile. Clearly Fairey chose to depict Mozilla the Lizard in that industrial-looking, side profile as is the harsh, contrasting style that he uses in all his works.
Moreover, how is looking like the Raptors logo supposed to somehow make Mozilla better?
Have they ever won a playoff title? (I jest, I jest)
Stop trying to cover your ass.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Well hanky panky guy,
I can log into any Unix workstation via ssh or a dedicated xterm and load Mozilla. When I do, my "home" directory contains all the setting for every application including Mozilla. So my bookmarks, app settings, desktop environment, etc. are all centralized and apply to any station.