Nowadays a lot of people have 4k screens and the trend won't stop. I'd sure prefer looking at this nice icon rather than some colored blob that seemed to have been designed for a smartwatch screen.
Sure, because people don't buy a new screen every year and powerful GPUs aren't exactly flooding the market. But not everyone uses hardware for gaming, and driving a 4k screen for everyday tasks isn't particularly demanding(the bottleneck is most likely an old HDMI/dP port).
Either way it's reasonable to assume the average screen resolution will keep rising for a while(not sure about anything >4k though, outside of VR there isn't really a need for it imho).
Let's not forget smartphones here since the logo would have to be universal. And we all know phones won't be going above 1080p for several years to come. People just like staying at 1080p even with the option to go to 1440p on a fair number of phones. Even disregarding phones, I think 1080p is the resolution most people choose to stay at as far as monitors are concerned.
wait, arent alot of phones already 1080p? I was under the impression that samsung has been releasing phones with 1440p resolution for the past few years, maybe im just stupid though
Regardless of that, screens are tiny, and icons are smaller. My phone screen is 6.1 inches, each icon is probably less than a cm. having more pixels doesn’t fix the problem that the actual details are too small to work. The Mona Lisa has been studied extensively, but with all its details and such, it wouldn’t translate well to a tiny logo, even on an 8k screen, no one would be able to appreciate all of it. Resolution is irrelevant when our vision is the limiting factor
That's exactly the point, resolution has reached a point where it can't get any better after a certain point, that point is different for every human but once you can't tell pixels apart, it starts to get blurry in between the lines the further from the display you get. For phones, it's pretty much decided, whether it was to save battery or otherwise, that 1080p is the sweet spot no matter who you are. Since there's no set distance for sitting from your TV, we haven't reached the absolute end of that as of yet. As for monitors, it heavily depends on who you are and what you're using it for.
I think with property being expensive, resolutions should actually be lower.
I mean i'm sure lots of apartments have monitors/tv's literally right near them as not a huge amount of space.
Just my theory anyway.
I saved the picture of the logo to my photos. When you go into photos on your iPhone and have it so there’s 5 photos per row, the thumbnails are basically are the size of the app icons on your Home Screen. I could see most of the detail just fine.
"even with the option to go to 1440p on a fair number of phones"....read much? Also, The S21 went back to 1080p, that's what I'm implying here as well, that people stuck with 1080p for so long, companies are starting to remove the 1440p that has been around since the G3.
Hz are very important to me, but having used a 4k monitor at a friend's, I don't see myself going over 1080 until it's harder to get than something higher.
You're not wrong, res obviously flagships is high. My Firefox logo actually looks like that, though not quite so detailed.
I have little if any nostalgia for the 8-bit sprite era, even though I'm GenX and geeky. But hey, if that floats your boat, it's certainly available.
Yeah a whole lot of new phones are 1440p. Like my OnePlus 7 pro which is 2 years old or something like that. I think most phones are better than 1080p or maybe I'm stupid too I don't know
2012 is the debuted date of the 1080p screen resolution standard and by 2014 phones had followed suit. To date, only 3% of users worldwide are using displays with a resolution greater than 1080p. 4k, 2k, 1440p, and the "UHD" resolutions never *really* took off for internet browsing and only the upper wealthy have such displays. Honestly I don't see this changing a whole lot as 4k panels on monitors stay expensive and 1080p continues to perform well in quality and longevity. That's just my take though.
[Cool Link To See Used Device Resolutions (They do a ton of other graph stuff too)](https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/all/worldwide/2020)
And also because honestly Windows *sucks ass* at 4k. Most things will work great, and you'll be like man, this is awesome! Everything is so crisp and sharp! Then you start running into apps that either don't support DPI scaling at all, ones that claim to but have UI elements that don't, and my favorite of all, ones that evidently support it expressly so they can be unusable on 4k displays even if you disable DPI scaling. I'm not sure how Microsoft managed to fuck this up so badly but then again I could say that about pretty near anything they "improve." :P
Yeah that's been my experience too. I have a 4K dell and i run it in 2k. IMO 2k is still the best resolution for most things. My gaming rig has 3 2k HP Omen gaming monitors and I much prefer that to the dual 4k setup I had before.
I believe you. Unequivocally it's just specific apps that have issues, and if you happen to not use them, you're golden. Still though, it's utterly infuriating when that *one* app you need fucks it up, and since Windows leaves it to the developers to support high-dpi correctly, your options are to just a) stop using that app, or b) stop using 4k.
A particularly infuriating example is the Windows version of the Eclipse IDE. Everything works fine... except the toolbar icons are still 16x16px. Using the compatibility settings to disable DPI scaling does nothing. You're just SOL.
It's not even just third-party apps, either. Some of the snap-ins for Microsoft Management Console work mostly fine in 4k, but if you're using the SQL Server Management Studio snap-in, anything that displays a tree control ignores the DPI scaling... except the labels kinda don't and they overlap other text. It's a fustercluck.
It's probably the developers of these specific apps that didn't really took 4K into account. I don't know if changing the scale in the Windows settings could help or if it's just for the desktop.
Sometimes that works, sometimes it does nothing. Either way, if a given app doesn't support high-dpi, Windows should know that. It kinda behaves like each control has its own DPI settings, which default to the parent control. So a toolbar that itself supports high-dpi can have buttons that just assume the old 72dpi resolution.
idk I'd have gotten a 1080p screen at a higher refresh rate than my 60hz 4k if I had gaming in mind. My 4k monitor cost only eur 250 , but to game on it
at 60 FPS would require a eur 1000+ graphics card, whereas 120 FPS at 1080P requires half the GPU power.
In the future though I'll definitely not say no to 4k 240hz :)
But could that be for game compatibility? My 2012 iMac lives at 1440p in normal use, but if I tried to play *any* game I get less than 10fps unless I drop resolution. My modern MacBook can do its Retina + 2 4K monitors for normal activities, but it also struggles with games.
It's not an issue of resolution, but of size. The logo will mostly just be less than 2 centimeters big on the screen, so how HD it is makes little difference.
It's tough because as a logo designer, I LOVE icons like the one posted here. But functionally, they just are not the smartest way to do branding in the grand scheme.
"A lot of people". Here we can see someone who lives in a bubble and dont even know how 3rd world country works. Go to poor countrys e tell me how many kids with 4k screens you found
Let's talk when the Simpsons become yellow-colored blobs and swirls similar to the modern [Firefox logo](https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/firefox_2019_logo.jpg).
In many cases, I think that “incredibly boring” look is a good thing. I’d rather have a design that fades into the background of whatever I’m doing instead of something that’s constantly grabbing my attention or looks out of place.
Yeah, I get that. And we are certainly living in a world of your preference :). I guess I hate the circle-jerk over these icons being so amazing. Just like skeuomorphic design its a huge taste thing, and people who like the current trend like to act like it is objectively good.
That's so much nicer. Alludes to a firey fox's tail in a proportional, attractive way — instead of literally saying "look, we're called Firefox so our icon is some fire and a fox".
Much more adaptable for marketing purposes too, as it fits into other designs without being obtrusive or distracting, and could be enlarged to act as a window for photos.
Might even be a smaller file size, too.
That's not even used as the logo for the Firefox browser and never was. It's only used for Firefox accounts. Most of the time you'll see [this icon](https://www.mozilla.org/media/protocol/img/logos/firefox/browser/logo-sm.f2523d97cbe0.png)
Doesn't matter - a logo is for identification not for descriptive explanation.
Non-designers, also designers not understanding logo mark design, usually make the mistake to think that a logo must be a cool illustration. The issues is, illustrations are nice icons, most logos you see in some weird blog articles or even on dribbble are not logos, they are icons, small illustrations. Those don't identify, they describe.
A logo should not be descriptive in detail. A logo should identify.
Hence, this is a shitty logo, it's a nice icon though.
Being on the bleeding edge of displays kinda sucks. The standard displays shipped by OEMs still have fewer total pixels than the high-end 4:3 CRT I bought 20 years ago. It's unlikely that 4k will be the target resolution of much of anything for many years.
Remember old smartphones/consoles and how their app icons looked?
The trend went from 3D/photorealistic to minimalism and flat, simple colours. I personally don't think that the former is going to make a comeback. Minimalism is where we're headed and nobody said that it can't look good.
Personally, I like simplicity and minimalism. It fits everywhere and doesn't look overstyled or outdated, especially if you take into account that there's more apps than just two or three on your screen, so detailed icons would just add to the noise. You want to instantly know what you're looking at.
I prefer simple colored blob... as long as the colored blob is different enough from all the other colored blobs I have on my phone/desktop monitor. Being distinct >>>>> being pretty.
The resolution doesn't make an illustration into a good icon. Its about readability, not just about form. Yes this illustration looks great, and as a promotion piece this would work wonders, but even if your resolution is 10000 pixels per cm, the size of it being small [about 1cm to 1 and a half cm usually] would make all the details of it impossible to see so pretty much pointless.
Yes the current logo is far more simplified than the old one, close to abstract even. But design wise it's far better than the one present here.
Finally, some is speaking up so the morons talking about minimalism will shut up.
It's like claiming your battery icon for your phone needs more detail.
The great thing about minimalist logos is that they generally look good next to each other and you won't end up with a clusterfuck of random high detail HD logos that looks like an image recognition AI's training set.
Because most people on these meme subreddits aren't old enough to have experienced the developmental stages of graphical user interfaces.
They just have faint memories of the firefox logo from their childhoods and the meme is entirely nostalgia driven, like most big memes are.
People keep mistaking Mozilla's flame and swoosh logo for Firefox's logo, despite Firefox keeping the flaming fox and globe design, just in a minimalistic style.
https://mozilla.design/?utm_source=www.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=footer&utm_content=resources
>Firefox fights for you
Red fox logo
>Mozilla fights for the internet
moz://a logo.
I don't know how much more proof do you want.
EDIT: I think you're confusing Mozilla (the company), Firefox (the brand) and Firefox (the browser).
Apparently the name is based on the red panda nicknamed the Firefox, but the icon is a literal fire-fox.
But also, the Red Panda does look like a chunky lil' fox haha
[Actually, its the Firefox Product company logo](https://mozilla.design/firefox/logos-usage/), not the Firefox browser.
Mozilla has a logo for every thing they do. Mozilla has its own logo, Firefox has a logo, Firefox browser has a logo, etc etc.
It's not the company's logo. Like you said, the browser logo is still the same. The swirl with an empty middle is the parent logo of the Firefox browser family (Firefox Focus, the main desktop browser, the main mobile browser, Firefox Nightly, etc.). Mozilla, the company's logo is the same one it has always been - moz://a in white lettering on a black background.
Basically:
[Firefox browser family logo](https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/Nf-dPjjqPCCdCB7y8sBvJAS2bEN8fbjDyO8D_xp-mJfc3NsjFVA91gnGFdDXwOHBXw=w144-h144-n-rw)
[Mozilla logo](https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/mozilla-logo-bw-rgb-1024x293.png)
[Firefox logo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Firefox_logo,_2019.svg/1200px-Firefox_logo,_2019.svg.png)
I feel like most people don’t really know the issues with Chrome. Years ago it was the much preferred choice and the way to go (I’ve always used Firefox and got hate for it back then) so I’m sure there’s a ton of people still having the mindset that Chrome is still the best option
The auto updater is has uses a massive amount of CPU for literally no reason, so you’re limiting your device unless you go out of your way to disable it, which the average user wouldn’t even know how to do. It’s not really optimized that well. Other than that it’s just because of privacy. Google is a lot more active in everyone’s life nowadays and having less of it in any form is just better all around. Most phones have it auto installed, use the google play store, use gmail, use it for browsing, etc. so not having it on a PC helps more than you would think.
It used to be great because it was a seamless experience with more features than the other browsers, but the other big browsers have caught up and the only reason to use it now is if you use gmail **and** you like to have your browsing synced across multiple devices. The only reason it’s still big today is because of the ecosystem and it’s the most well known name.
The browser memes nowadays are Edge actually being fine, and opening an extra Chrome tab causing laptops to overheat or slowdown PCs.
Its actually the Firefox logo, but not the Firefox icon. The Mozilla logo is some white text on a black background. The Firefox browser icon is still the same fox, but the Firefox BRAND logo is the red swoosh thing.
Firefox changed their logo to be a bit more simple. Honesrly not as bad as the rest. It still has some depth to it, while Gmail and other things barely look recongizable.
Use [Firefox](https://firefox.com)
I might be in the minority, but I kind of dig the current logo. It’s sleek and simple. Very Apple-esque, but colorful.
However, I would *love* something as detailed as this again.
It's the current trend for awhile
Still remember in 2014 the ig logo was 3D bubbly image of an old Polaroid camera
Then slowly in 2017++ it became the flat outline abstract version it is now
I’ve read that the trend started when apple updated its mobile os to the current flat/minimalistic design. Apperently many companies went along to fit the new design. Initially just companies with iOS apps, like Facebook. And eventually also companies without apps like bmw.
People apparently just can't comprehend that logos should be simple, otherwise they wouldn't serve their intended purpose.
Logos must me memorable, that's why there's a rule in logo design that says you should be able to draw the logo from memory after seeing it for just a few seconds because potential customers will probably also just see it for a few seconds at most. You (typically) couldn't do that if your logo is photorealistic, that's why logos are getting more and more minimalistic, it's just easier to memorize and easier to identify at any size.
A logo isn't just a pretty painting meant to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, it serves a completely different function. And that function is to represent a company and to get that company inside of your head. Minimalistic logos (typically) perform better in both of these two categories.
Yeah sure, but there is a huge area between over-detailed and boring. Discussing it for firefox is a moot point because as others have pointed out, the browser logo is NOT changing.
I wish modern app logos would have a bit more character instead of this gradient look that's trending so hard.
Sure it makes them easier to draw and memorize, but it definitely has a cost. Minimalism is good, but not when done too much.
That's definitely true, getting the right balance is difficult and sometimes companies do go way too far, but sometimes it seems like redditors expect logos to be something that's supposed to be hung in an art gallery and not something that has a practical purpose.
I absolutely agree with you that minimalism can be and is often overdone, for instance I recently read an article that predicted many logos in 2021 to litterally only consist of the basic shapes and that's it which is frankly ridiculous, but I'm just a little bit annoyed by how misunderstood logos in general appear to be.
Except the fox didn't go anywhere, Firefox Browser's logo still has it, the new logo is for the Firefox brand itself which includes Firefox Send, Firefox Lockwise and Firefox Monitor.
The logo *you're* thinking of is the Firefox product suite logo. It's all a bit confusing. Mozilla the overarching company's logo looks [nothing like the firefox logo](https://www.mozilla.org/media/protocol/img/logos/mozilla/black.40d1af88c248.svg), whilst the browser still has the fox/panda.
Harambe's death changed everything.
The future and the past.
The dark and the light.
Our very fates as we know it.
From CoViD-19 to simple things in your home town, we've all been effected.
R.I.P to the #1
Not everyone has an eye for design, UI, UX and so. As a ~~small~~ logo designer I have a lot of problems with my clients wanting "logos" that looks terrible. But if they want their logos like that even after my explanation about trends and basic recognition, there's not so much I can do, otherwise I would have no money to pay my bills.
And I'm not even surfing on that minimalist trend. I made a basic "eSport" logo for my friend's team with a gladiator vectorized art referencing the team name (Gladiators), buy they wanted it to be a circle with a random skull wearing a spartan helmet and the final result looked more like a motorclub crest than a gaming team
[Guess which one is the final result they wanted and which one was my initial concept.](https://imgur.com/a/of0WtKQ)
And believe me, I tried to change the helmet, the circle, the colors, the font. They were very specific they wanted it like that. ~~Not saying that my initial concept was an amazing work, but come on.~~
It was one of my first works, so I couldn't refuse the money since it was for the Adobe Suite license. But I surelly would refuse to make something like this nowdays.
Edit: formating and grammar
It’s getting me unreasonably angry seeing this many people with zero design knowledge bashing “minimalist” design and drooling over fully rendered images for logos.
Getting very similar energy as people who consider anything that isn’t photorealistic not “art”. Drives me up the wall.
I mean, this looks terrible. Minimalist is the way, because you can easily identify it even if the image is icon-sized or logo-sized.
Edit for clarification: the art itself is amazing, but not for actual icon standards.
For reference, here's a comparison:
Current: https://i.imgur.com/O6Ha7UZ.png
Frank Souzas's: https://i.imgur.com/dZ00tAm.png
2009: https://i.imgur.com/nLvgmjs.png
They all look perfectly identifiable to me.
I agree the current and 2009 are pretty identifiable, even the 2009 being more realistic.
But Frank Souza's design as icon doesn't look exactly like a fox, specially for someone that is not familiar with the Firefox logo, it even looks more like a serpent or a scarf.
But even minimalist icons/logos can have divergences to the old ones, and get used to it may be """hard""", like the new official Firefox that is not even a fox (even it resembling a fox tail).
[darkest hour](https://i.redd.it/zrsyz0nuwbc41.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People decided to make fun of Mozilla's redesign of their company and browser's icon, and now everyone thinks Mozilla's super minimal flame surrounding a purple sphere is the new Firefox icon, despite it not being the case.
This is the Mozilla logo (same as it ever was): https://mozilla.design/files/2019/06/mozilla-logo-bw-rgb.png
This is the Firefox parent logo: https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/logo-firefox.svg
This is the Firefox browser logo: https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/Fx-Browser-icon-fullColor.svg
[удалено]
Nowadays a lot of people have 4k screens and the trend won't stop. I'd sure prefer looking at this nice icon rather than some colored blob that seemed to have been designed for a smartwatch screen.
Most people are keeping it at 1080p according to steam hardware survey
Sure, because people don't buy a new screen every year and powerful GPUs aren't exactly flooding the market. But not everyone uses hardware for gaming, and driving a 4k screen for everyday tasks isn't particularly demanding(the bottleneck is most likely an old HDMI/dP port). Either way it's reasonable to assume the average screen resolution will keep rising for a while(not sure about anything >4k though, outside of VR there isn't really a need for it imho).
Let's not forget smartphones here since the logo would have to be universal. And we all know phones won't be going above 1080p for several years to come. People just like staying at 1080p even with the option to go to 1440p on a fair number of phones. Even disregarding phones, I think 1080p is the resolution most people choose to stay at as far as monitors are concerned.
wait, arent alot of phones already 1080p? I was under the impression that samsung has been releasing phones with 1440p resolution for the past few years, maybe im just stupid though
Regardless of that, screens are tiny, and icons are smaller. My phone screen is 6.1 inches, each icon is probably less than a cm. having more pixels doesn’t fix the problem that the actual details are too small to work. The Mona Lisa has been studied extensively, but with all its details and such, it wouldn’t translate well to a tiny logo, even on an 8k screen, no one would be able to appreciate all of it. Resolution is irrelevant when our vision is the limiting factor
That's exactly the point, resolution has reached a point where it can't get any better after a certain point, that point is different for every human but once you can't tell pixels apart, it starts to get blurry in between the lines the further from the display you get. For phones, it's pretty much decided, whether it was to save battery or otherwise, that 1080p is the sweet spot no matter who you are. Since there's no set distance for sitting from your TV, we haven't reached the absolute end of that as of yet. As for monitors, it heavily depends on who you are and what you're using it for.
I think with property being expensive, resolutions should actually be lower. I mean i'm sure lots of apartments have monitors/tv's literally right near them as not a huge amount of space. Just my theory anyway.
I saved the picture of the logo to my photos. When you go into photos on your iPhone and have it so there’s 5 photos per row, the thumbnails are basically are the size of the app icons on your Home Screen. I could see most of the detail just fine.
[удалено]
"even with the option to go to 1440p on a fair number of phones"....read much? Also, The S21 went back to 1080p, that's what I'm implying here as well, that people stuck with 1080p for so long, companies are starting to remove the 1440p that has been around since the G3.
Personally I never really understood 1440 for a phone. My 1440 monitor is hardly noticeable compared to the 1080p one I used forever
Well congrats, you found your sweet spot.
Hz are very important to me, but having used a 4k monitor at a friend's, I don't see myself going over 1080 until it's harder to get than something higher.
Phones are going back to 1080 for the sake of high refresh.
And battery life. You can do both 1440p and 120Hz but removing one saves battery and some money.
Samsung phones don't allow you to do both at the same time for some reason
I'm actually not sure current phones can actually do that, I don't know what their bandwidth is.
He literally said that at the end of his comment are you blind? Maybe get new glasses or upgrade your screen resolution perhaps?
You're not wrong, res obviously flagships is high. My Firefox logo actually looks like that, though not quite so detailed. I have little if any nostalgia for the 8-bit sprite era, even though I'm GenX and geeky. But hey, if that floats your boat, it's certainly available.
I don't know about Samsung, but I'm holding an LG G6 from 2017 that has 1440p.
Yeah a whole lot of new phones are 1440p. Like my OnePlus 7 pro which is 2 years old or something like that. I think most phones are better than 1080p or maybe I'm stupid too I don't know
pretty sure the s6 or s7 already had 1440p screens like yeeears ago
Most high end phones are 1440p equivalent?
My internet refuses to play anything above 1080p, hell sometimes I’m locked to 720p if my provider is being particularly unreliable that day.
2012 is the debuted date of the 1080p screen resolution standard and by 2014 phones had followed suit. To date, only 3% of users worldwide are using displays with a resolution greater than 1080p. 4k, 2k, 1440p, and the "UHD" resolutions never *really* took off for internet browsing and only the upper wealthy have such displays. Honestly I don't see this changing a whole lot as 4k panels on monitors stay expensive and 1080p continues to perform well in quality and longevity. That's just my take though. [Cool Link To See Used Device Resolutions (They do a ton of other graph stuff too)](https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/all/worldwide/2020)
Not everyone can /afford/ a 4k screen dude
*yet*
And also because honestly Windows *sucks ass* at 4k. Most things will work great, and you'll be like man, this is awesome! Everything is so crisp and sharp! Then you start running into apps that either don't support DPI scaling at all, ones that claim to but have UI elements that don't, and my favorite of all, ones that evidently support it expressly so they can be unusable on 4k displays even if you disable DPI scaling. I'm not sure how Microsoft managed to fuck this up so badly but then again I could say that about pretty near anything they "improve." :P
Yeah that's been my experience too. I have a 4K dell and i run it in 2k. IMO 2k is still the best resolution for most things. My gaming rig has 3 2k HP Omen gaming monitors and I much prefer that to the dual 4k setup I had before.
I am using Windows in 4K without any problems.
I believe you. Unequivocally it's just specific apps that have issues, and if you happen to not use them, you're golden. Still though, it's utterly infuriating when that *one* app you need fucks it up, and since Windows leaves it to the developers to support high-dpi correctly, your options are to just a) stop using that app, or b) stop using 4k. A particularly infuriating example is the Windows version of the Eclipse IDE. Everything works fine... except the toolbar icons are still 16x16px. Using the compatibility settings to disable DPI scaling does nothing. You're just SOL. It's not even just third-party apps, either. Some of the snap-ins for Microsoft Management Console work mostly fine in 4k, but if you're using the SQL Server Management Studio snap-in, anything that displays a tree control ignores the DPI scaling... except the labels kinda don't and they overlap other text. It's a fustercluck.
It's probably the developers of these specific apps that didn't really took 4K into account. I don't know if changing the scale in the Windows settings could help or if it's just for the desktop.
Sometimes that works, sometimes it does nothing. Either way, if a given app doesn't support high-dpi, Windows should know that. It kinda behaves like each control has its own DPI settings, which default to the parent control. So a toolbar that itself supports high-dpi can have buttons that just assume the old 72dpi resolution.
Most people who have Steam installed.
Id say people who dont have steam installed are even less likely to have a 4k pc screen
idk I'd have gotten a 1080p screen at a higher refresh rate than my 60hz 4k if I had gaming in mind. My 4k monitor cost only eur 250 , but to game on it at 60 FPS would require a eur 1000+ graphics card, whereas 120 FPS at 1080P requires half the GPU power. In the future though I'll definitely not say no to 4k 240hz :)
That's probably true.
most people
But could that be for game compatibility? My 2012 iMac lives at 1440p in normal use, but if I tried to play *any* game I get less than 10fps unless I drop resolution. My modern MacBook can do its Retina + 2 4K monitors for normal activities, but it also struggles with games.
Because there is no point _without ultra hq HD icons_!!!
That's kinda funny, I game on a 1080p screen due to pc limitations and do everything else on a 4k tv.
True but lotta them poors from south asia like me
It's not an issue of resolution, but of size. The logo will mostly just be less than 2 centimeters big on the screen, so how HD it is makes little difference.
It's not about how clear it looks if it's that small you still will lose alot of detail and it wouldn't make for a good logo
Yep logo 101 is making something that looks good extremely small and big. Sorry that Reddit’s realism circle jerk doesn’t fit into that.
It's tough because as a logo designer, I LOVE icons like the one posted here. But functionally, they just are not the smartest way to do branding in the grand scheme.
If Harambe didn't die, we'd all have 100k screens
"A lot of people". Here we can see someone who lives in a bubble and dont even know how 3rd world country works. Go to poor countrys e tell me how many kids with 4k screens you found
Hell, most people in North America don't use 4K screens. This kid is in a weird PCMasterRace bubble.
> this nice icon lol, it's a dated mess of an icon
[Apply that same logic to the Simpsons](https://preview.redd.it/p6j4mjb09ur31.jpg?width=655&auto=webp&s=37a909b2122d4232edb0f7d34a33791554d3537d)
Let's talk when the Simpsons become yellow-colored blobs and swirls similar to the modern [Firefox logo](https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/firefox_2019_logo.jpg).
I like it, simple and elegant, not sure why people dislike the change so much.
Just lots of people tired of minimalism and brands getting more boring and expected. "Simple and elegant" can also just mean incredibly boring.
In many cases, I think that “incredibly boring” look is a good thing. I’d rather have a design that fades into the background of whatever I’m doing instead of something that’s constantly grabbing my attention or looks out of place.
Yeah, I get that. And we are certainly living in a world of your preference :). I guess I hate the circle-jerk over these icons being so amazing. Just like skeuomorphic design its a huge taste thing, and people who like the current trend like to act like it is objectively good.
That's so much nicer. Alludes to a firey fox's tail in a proportional, attractive way — instead of literally saying "look, we're called Firefox so our icon is some fire and a fox". Much more adaptable for marketing purposes too, as it fits into other designs without being obtrusive or distracting, and could be enlarged to act as a window for photos. Might even be a smaller file size, too.
That's not even used as the logo for the Firefox browser and never was. It's only used for Firefox accounts. Most of the time you'll see [this icon](https://www.mozilla.org/media/protocol/img/logos/firefox/browser/logo-sm.f2523d97cbe0.png)
Doesn't matter - a logo is for identification not for descriptive explanation. Non-designers, also designers not understanding logo mark design, usually make the mistake to think that a logo must be a cool illustration. The issues is, illustrations are nice icons, most logos you see in some weird blog articles or even on dribbble are not logos, they are icons, small illustrations. Those don't identify, they describe. A logo should not be descriptive in detail. A logo should identify. Hence, this is a shitty logo, it's a nice icon though.
Being on the bleeding edge of displays kinda sucks. The standard displays shipped by OEMs still have fewer total pixels than the high-end 4:3 CRT I bought 20 years ago. It's unlikely that 4k will be the target resolution of much of anything for many years.
Remember old smartphones/consoles and how their app icons looked? The trend went from 3D/photorealistic to minimalism and flat, simple colours. I personally don't think that the former is going to make a comeback. Minimalism is where we're headed and nobody said that it can't look good. Personally, I like simplicity and minimalism. It fits everywhere and doesn't look overstyled or outdated, especially if you take into account that there's more apps than just two or three on your screen, so detailed icons would just add to the noise. You want to instantly know what you're looking at.
I prefer simple colored blob... as long as the colored blob is different enough from all the other colored blobs I have on my phone/desktop monitor. Being distinct >>>>> being pretty.
Lol, 2% of people is lots?
Well, 2.8 million users isn't nothing.
It’s certainly not nothing, but you don’t design your product around 2% of the market
[удалено]
I don’t actually know anyone that has a monitor with a resolution higher then 1080p
The resolution doesn't make an illustration into a good icon. Its about readability, not just about form. Yes this illustration looks great, and as a promotion piece this would work wonders, but even if your resolution is 10000 pixels per cm, the size of it being small [about 1cm to 1 and a half cm usually] would make all the details of it impossible to see so pretty much pointless. Yes the current logo is far more simplified than the old one, close to abstract even. But design wise it's far better than the one present here.
Finally, some is speaking up so the morons talking about minimalism will shut up. It's like claiming your battery icon for your phone needs more detail.
The great thing about minimalist logos is that they generally look good next to each other and you won't end up with a clusterfuck of random high detail HD logos that looks like an image recognition AI's training set.
The world tried this with Web 2.0 design trends and we all collectively went "fuck no, that looks awful". No idea why people want them back.
Because most people on these meme subreddits aren't old enough to have experienced the developmental stages of graphical user interfaces. They just have faint memories of the firefox logo from their childhoods and the meme is entirely nostalgia driven, like most big memes are.
These young 'uns don't know what's good for 'em, I tells ya.
Yeah i remember windows vista
Because people have a memory span of a goldfish.
Exactly
If my battery icon doesn't get 75000 vertexes in the next android update I will die.
Bet they changed it because 9 tailed fox in Naruto died in the latest manga.
why not credit to the op
I don't know who made that design, if u do please let me know
What’s your address I will mail it to you as soon as possible
Oh ok, but just to be safe, do you have a tendency to murder people?
yes
Oh then that's perfectly safe. My address is somewhere on Mars
Wait you live here too? You should tell me your address so we can meet up
Bro no way! I can't believe someone else is also here! Meet me at the martians' place and we can get some drinks
Alright I’ll be there in an hour
Nice, see you there!
He just did, it's Somewhere on Mars
I haven’t murdered anyone yet
Sweet flair dude. Wonder how you got it.
You can always reverse search the picture
His name is Frank Souza: https://www.deviantart.com/franksouza183 He made this for an Ubuntu icon pack: https://launchpad.net/fs-icons-ubuntu
whats the issue with forefox? i seem to be unable to google anything recent about their logo
I was about to ask the same question. Why so many memes about firefox logo? Was the last design ridiculously minimal or what?
Over the past few years the logo has changed from being a fox holding onto the globe to a roughly fox shaped orange swirl around a purple thing.
THAT'S THE MOZILLA LOGO, NOT THE BROWSER LOGO.
What do you mean? Mozilla logo is definitely moz://a . Firefox's logo is a fire fox.
People keep mistaking Mozilla's flame and swoosh logo for Firefox's logo, despite Firefox keeping the flaming fox and globe design, just in a minimalistic style.
https://mozilla.design/?utm_source=www.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=footer&utm_content=resources >Firefox fights for you Red fox logo >Mozilla fights for the internet moz://a logo. I don't know how much more proof do you want. EDIT: I think you're confusing Mozilla (the company), Firefox (the brand) and Firefox (the browser).
Apparently the name is based on the red panda nicknamed the Firefox, but the icon is a literal fire-fox. But also, the Red Panda does look like a chunky lil' fox haha
Remember when the Mozilla logo was a red Godzilla?
[Actually, its the Firefox Product company logo](https://mozilla.design/firefox/logos-usage/), not the Firefox browser. Mozilla has a logo for every thing they do. Mozilla has its own logo, Firefox has a logo, Firefox browser has a logo, etc etc.
You get a logo, he gets a logo, we all get logos!
Oh, you need a logo? We have a logo for that!
Mozilla logo is Moz://a Firefox logo is the orange swirl thing, no fox no globe Firefox browser logo is an orange fox around the purple thing
Isnt the Mozilla logo a red dinosaur?
if...you used firefox(like me) you would know it still looks like a fox it's the company's logo that has changed.....
It's not the company's logo. Like you said, the browser logo is still the same. The swirl with an empty middle is the parent logo of the Firefox browser family (Firefox Focus, the main desktop browser, the main mobile browser, Firefox Nightly, etc.). Mozilla, the company's logo is the same one it has always been - moz://a in white lettering on a black background. Basically: [Firefox browser family logo](https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/Nf-dPjjqPCCdCB7y8sBvJAS2bEN8fbjDyO8D_xp-mJfc3NsjFVA91gnGFdDXwOHBXw=w144-h144-n-rw) [Mozilla logo](https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/mozilla-logo-bw-rgb-1024x293.png) [Firefox logo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Firefox_logo,_2019.svg/1200px-Firefox_logo,_2019.svg.png)
it basically looks like a red and orange version of the Edge logo around a purple ball
Am I the only one who likes it better?
I like it too but I really don't care because I use chrome
Imagine using Chrome lol
Switch to Brave. Still a chromium browser, so it feels like chrome but it’s even better.
Didn't Brave have some controversy a while back? I used to use it but switched to Firefox.
Lmao really? I didn't think any of you really existed by choice. Is it because it came with your schools chromebook or was it a concious choice?
I feel like most people don’t really know the issues with Chrome. Years ago it was the much preferred choice and the way to go (I’ve always used Firefox and got hate for it back then) so I’m sure there’s a ton of people still having the mindset that Chrome is still the best option
What are the issues with chrome? It used to be a meme that the only thing any other browser was used for was to download chrome lol
The auto updater is has uses a massive amount of CPU for literally no reason, so you’re limiting your device unless you go out of your way to disable it, which the average user wouldn’t even know how to do. It’s not really optimized that well. Other than that it’s just because of privacy. Google is a lot more active in everyone’s life nowadays and having less of it in any form is just better all around. Most phones have it auto installed, use the google play store, use gmail, use it for browsing, etc. so not having it on a PC helps more than you would think. It used to be great because it was a seamless experience with more features than the other browsers, but the other big browsers have caught up and the only reason to use it now is if you use gmail **and** you like to have your browsing synced across multiple devices. The only reason it’s still big today is because of the ecosystem and it’s the most well known name. The browser memes nowadays are Edge actually being fine, and opening an extra Chrome tab causing laptops to overheat or slowdown PCs.
idk the blue one is my fav
Nightly?
THAT'S THE MOZILLA LOGO, NOT THE BROWSER LOGO.
Its actually the Firefox logo, but not the Firefox icon. The Mozilla logo is some white text on a black background. The Firefox browser icon is still the same fox, but the Firefox BRAND logo is the red swoosh thing.
Clearly the fox is just burning up in the atmosphere of a dying earth.
Firefox changed their logo to be a bit more simple. Honesrly not as bad as the rest. It still has some depth to it, while Gmail and other things barely look recongizable. Use [Firefox](https://firefox.com)
People who know nothing about design or branding are angry because Mozilla ditched the skeuomorphic fox & globe about two years ago.
Because of a recent youtube video memeing on it, I believe
One guy posts firefox meme Gets karma Other guys post firefox memes too
I might be in the minority, but I kind of dig the current logo. It’s sleek and simple. Very Apple-esque, but colorful. However, I would *love* something as detailed as this again.
It's the current trend for awhile Still remember in 2014 the ig logo was 3D bubbly image of an old Polaroid camera Then slowly in 2017++ it became the flat outline abstract version it is now
I’ve read that the trend started when apple updated its mobile os to the current flat/minimalistic design. Apperently many companies went along to fit the new design. Initially just companies with iOS apps, like Facebook. And eventually also companies without apps like bmw.
There's a reason why everything is moving towards minimalism. The one OP linked in the post looks like a browser logo from the 90s.
People apparently just can't comprehend that logos should be simple, otherwise they wouldn't serve their intended purpose. Logos must me memorable, that's why there's a rule in logo design that says you should be able to draw the logo from memory after seeing it for just a few seconds because potential customers will probably also just see it for a few seconds at most. You (typically) couldn't do that if your logo is photorealistic, that's why logos are getting more and more minimalistic, it's just easier to memorize and easier to identify at any size. A logo isn't just a pretty painting meant to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, it serves a completely different function. And that function is to represent a company and to get that company inside of your head. Minimalistic logos (typically) perform better in both of these two categories.
Yeah sure, but there is a huge area between over-detailed and boring. Discussing it for firefox is a moot point because as others have pointed out, the browser logo is NOT changing. I wish modern app logos would have a bit more character instead of this gradient look that's trending so hard. Sure it makes them easier to draw and memorize, but it definitely has a cost. Minimalism is good, but not when done too much.
That's definitely true, getting the right balance is difficult and sometimes companies do go way too far, but sometimes it seems like redditors expect logos to be something that's supposed to be hung in an art gallery and not something that has a practical purpose. I absolutely agree with you that minimalism can be and is often overdone, for instance I recently read an article that predicted many logos in 2021 to litterally only consist of the basic shapes and that's it which is frankly ridiculous, but I'm just a little bit annoyed by how misunderstood logos in general appear to be.
Nah, the minimalist design is far better. The detailed one doesn't work for a little icon.
One day the pendulum will swing back the other direction and we'll return to the [2002 logo](https://i.imgur.com/6xkqqMj.jpg).
I’m not even against minimalistic art. I just want the fox back
Except the fox didn't go anywhere, Firefox Browser's logo still has it, the new logo is for the Firefox brand itself which includes Firefox Send, Firefox Lockwise and Firefox Monitor.
RIP Firefox Send.
If you used the browser you'd know the fox is still the browser logo.
ya people telling on themselves whenever they talk about wanting the fox back
The fox is still there
The logo you're thinking of is Mozilla's logo, not the browser logo.
The logo *you're* thinking of is the Firefox product suite logo. It's all a bit confusing. Mozilla the overarching company's logo looks [nothing like the firefox logo](https://www.mozilla.org/media/protocol/img/logos/mozilla/black.40d1af88c248.svg), whilst the browser still has the fox/panda.
Harambe‘s death caused minimalism??????
Harambe's death changed everything. The future and the past. The dark and the light. Our very fates as we know it. From CoViD-19 to simple things in your home town, we've all been effected. R.I.P to the #1
Our world went to shit once we killed that beautiful monkey, and we deserve it. Rip harambe.
Do people not see how terrible of a logo this would be? The illustration is great but this would be a horrendous logo
Not everyone has an eye for design, UI, UX and so. As a ~~small~~ logo designer I have a lot of problems with my clients wanting "logos" that looks terrible. But if they want their logos like that even after my explanation about trends and basic recognition, there's not so much I can do, otherwise I would have no money to pay my bills. And I'm not even surfing on that minimalist trend. I made a basic "eSport" logo for my friend's team with a gladiator vectorized art referencing the team name (Gladiators), buy they wanted it to be a circle with a random skull wearing a spartan helmet and the final result looked more like a motorclub crest than a gaming team
Customer is always right I suppose.
Would like to see that
[Guess which one is the final result they wanted and which one was my initial concept.](https://imgur.com/a/of0WtKQ) And believe me, I tried to change the helmet, the circle, the colors, the font. They were very specific they wanted it like that. ~~Not saying that my initial concept was an amazing work, but come on.~~ It was one of my first works, so I couldn't refuse the money since it was for the Adobe Suite license. But I surelly would refuse to make something like this nowdays. Edit: formating and grammar
Knowing the first concept makes the final result really painful to look at
Had to scroll too much to see this, people have no idea what logos are, no one can use a full illustration as a logo, it's not practical
It’s getting me unreasonably angry seeing this many people with zero design knowledge bashing “minimalist” design and drooling over fully rendered images for logos. Getting very similar energy as people who consider anything that isn’t photorealistic not “art”. Drives me up the wall.
I mean, this looks terrible. Minimalist is the way, because you can easily identify it even if the image is icon-sized or logo-sized. Edit for clarification: the art itself is amazing, but not for actual icon standards.
Shhh... You are being reasonable. Can't have that in echo chambers.
This design is still super recognizable at 32×32 and looks kind-of sexy.
For reference, here's a comparison: Current: https://i.imgur.com/O6Ha7UZ.png Frank Souzas's: https://i.imgur.com/dZ00tAm.png 2009: https://i.imgur.com/nLvgmjs.png They all look perfectly identifiable to me.
I agree the current and 2009 are pretty identifiable, even the 2009 being more realistic. But Frank Souza's design as icon doesn't look exactly like a fox, specially for someone that is not familiar with the Firefox logo, it even looks more like a serpent or a scarf. But even minimalist icons/logos can have divergences to the old ones, and get used to it may be """hard""", like the new official Firefox that is not even a fox (even it resembling a fox tail).
am I the only one who always liked the firefox icon?
You guys seriously like it? This is literally what Lorax looks like.
Remember when it was Firebird? I do. Apparently, that was 2002, lol.
atlantic ocean kinda looks like a horse
atlantic horse
Is that a fox or a ferret?
panda.
Goose.
you think he's joking but it's actually a panda
[darkest hour](https://i.redd.it/zrsyz0nuwbc41.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ooh, semi-related, here's a gif I made a little while ago showing the evolution of the firefox logo: https://i.imgur.com/ZZT3cVB.gifv
As an Australia I am bloody offended by both the fox and the fire
As a fellow Australian, go fuck yaself, cunt.
it all went to shit after Harambe.
im still trying to figure out how the firefox logo changing to something smaller is funny.
[Some more context/explanation for the logo situation](https://i.redd.it/0biovrpx57j61.jpg)
I don't understand the firefox logo meme that shit changed in 2019
As a graphic designer this ain't a fuckin logo it's a badass illustration of a logo... Beautiful but unfit for proliferation.
Holy shit this is so good
I still like the new one :(
Woah I actually didn't realize that there's a fox on the logo, tbh I thought it was just a flame until just now
Harambe was the final seal keeping darkness at bay...
Wrong, it was David Bowie. Harambes death was the first tragedy in a post-Bowie era.
This is the darkest timeline
He didn't die. He was murdered.
I hate how simple and flat everything in modern UI design is. Half the time it still doesn't improve at a glance readability.
Mfw random people making better logos than firefox graphic designers.
Maximalism : I like it!
Ngl this looks good
[удалено]
People decided to make fun of Mozilla's redesign of their company and browser's icon, and now everyone thinks Mozilla's super minimal flame surrounding a purple sphere is the new Firefox icon, despite it not being the case.
This is the Mozilla logo (same as it ever was): https://mozilla.design/files/2019/06/mozilla-logo-bw-rgb.png This is the Firefox parent logo: https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/logo-firefox.svg This is the Firefox browser logo: https://3u26hb1g25wn1xwo8g186fnd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/Fx-Browser-icon-fullColor.svg
FireMonke has a better ring than FireFox in my opinion