Categories: Branding

Evolving the Firefox Brand

Say “Firefox” and most people think of a web browser on their laptop or phone, period. TL;DR, there’s more to the story now, and our branding needs to evolve.

With the rapid evolution of the internet, people need new tools to make the most of it. So Firefox is creating new types of browsers and a range of new apps and services with the internet as the platform. From easy screen-shotting and file sharing to innovative ways to access the internet using voice and virtual reality, these tools will help people be more efficient, safer, and in control of their time online. Firefox is where purpose meets performance.

Firefox Quantum Browser Icon

As an icon, that fast fox with a flaming tail doesn’t offer enough design tools to represent this entire product family. Recoloring that logo or dissecting the fox could only take us so far. We needed to start from a new place.

A team made up of product and brand designers at Mozilla has begun imagining a new system to embrace all of the Firefox products in the pipeline and those still in the minds of our Emerging Technologies group. Working across traditional silos, we’re designing a system that can guide people smoothly from our marketing to our in-product experiences.

Today, we’re sharing our two design system approaches to ask for your feedback.


How this works.

For those who recall the Open Design process we used to craft our Mozilla brand identity, our approach here will feel familiar:

  • We are not crowdsourcing the answer.
  • There’ll be no voting.
  • No one is being asked to design anything for free.

Living by our open-source values of transparency and participation, we’re reaching out to our community to learn what people think. You can make your views known by commenting on this blog post below.

Extreme caveat: Although the products and projects are real, these design systems are still a work of fiction. Icons are not final. Each individual icon will undergo several rounds of refinement, or may change entirely, between now and their respective product launches. Our focus at this point is on the system.

We’ll be using these criteria to evaluate the work:

  • Do these two systems still feel like Firefox?
  • How visually cohesive is each of them? Does each hold together?
  • Can the design logic of these systems stretch to embrace new products in the future?
  • Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for?
  • Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?

All the details.

The brand architecture for both systems is made up of four levels.

Each system leads with a new Firefox masterbrand icon — an umbrella under which our product lines will live.

The masterbrand icon will show up in our marketing, at events, in co-branding with partners, and in places like the Google Play store where our products can be found. Who knows? Someday this icon may be what people think of when they hear the word “Firefox.”

At the general-purpose browser level, we’re proposing to update our Firefox Quantum desktop icon. We continue to simplify and modernize this icon, and people who use Firefox tell us they love it. Firefox Developer Edition and Firefox Nightly are rendered as color variants of the Quantum icon.

Browsers with a singular focus, such as our Firefox Reality browser for VR applications and our privacy-driven Firefox Focus mobile browser, share a common design approach for their icons. These are meant to relate most directly to the master brand as peers to the Firefox Quantum browser icon.

Finally, the icons for new applications and services signal the unique function of each product. Color and graphic treatment unite them and connect them to the master brand. Each icon shape is one of a kind, allowing people to distinguish among choices seen side by side on a screen.

Still in the works are explorations of typography, graphic patterns, motion, naming, events, partnerships, and other elements of the system that, used together with consistency in the product, will form the total brand experience.

Read along as we refine our final system over the next few months. What we roll out will be based on the feedback we receive here, insights we’re gathering from formal user testing, and our product knowledge and design sensibilities.

With your input, we’ll have a final system that will make a Firefox product recognizable out in the world even if a fox is nowhere in sight. And we’ll deliver a consistent experience from an advertisement to a button on a web page. Thanks for joining us on this new journey.

Madhava Enros, Sr. Director, Firefox User Experience

Tim Murray, Creative Director, Mozilla

2,056 comments on “Evolving the Firefox Brand”

  1. Tyler wrote on

    So, I’m not a big fan of the non-Firefox icons in the Design group 2, but I love the Firefox browser icons there. The non-Firefox icons look childish and cheap.

    I’d prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2

    1. Vandrey wrote on

      Me too! Group 1 with Group 2 browser icons.

      1. Adrian wrote on

        Me too!

      2. Scott Ryan wrote on

        I agree! The combination of the two is the best option.

        1. José Zapana wrote on

          I also agree that group 1 with browser group 2 is the best so far

          1. Julia wrote on

            It was one of the first i thoughts I had as well…

        2. Paul Alcock wrote on

          Absolutely agreed

          1. Ronaldo wrote on

            Agree with Tyler.

      3. Camile wrote on

        Totally agree:

        System 2 browser icons with System 1 app icons.

        1. Malcolm wrote on

          System 2 with system’s 1 browser icons. Don’t drop the tail-flame and globe!

      4. Merlin Duff wrote on

        Yes, a blend of the two feels most right.

        System 2 masterband icon, System 2 for the general-purpose browser, System 1 for the singularly-focused browser icons (although the colour palette here strikes me as surprising), System 1 for app & service icons.

      5. rere wrote on

        Same here !

    2. Tony wrote on

      I’m with Tyler on this. Ditto.

    3. Bernhard wrote on

      I completely agree with that. The browser icons are nice, but other than that I hope those ones are going to be re-thought (or canned).

    4. Romain wrote on


      1. Sheng wrote on


    5. Bdm wrote on

      Yap, agree

    6. Margo Williams wrote on

      Ditto ditto ditto!

    7. Gee wrote on

      Exactly. Design 2 main icon as well as general purpose look very good and solid. The System2 dont look good at all.

      keep in mind that android allows icons to be other than the boxes, squares (iphone, samsung). I would og for icons that do also look good when seen without any box around (like the main browser icons). System2 does not fulfill this requirement at all.

    8. Jeff wrote on

      +1. The main system 1 icon looks almost exactly like the Gitlab one, and for my fuddy-duddy two cents, is too great of a departure from heritage. But maybe they want the departure. But the confusion with the Gitlab icon should be a big red flag.

      1. Sylvain wrote on

        I thought the same, the main icon in System 1 is too similar to the Gitlab one!
        But I still prefer the style of System 1 icons.

    9. Jeremy wrote on

      I second this.

      1. Sactocat wrote on

        System 1
        great work

    10. Alejandro wrote on

      I agree with this too. I think it’s the best combination.

    11. George Tzikas wrote on


    12. Chris wrote on

      Same! +1

    13. Gert wrote on

      for me as well.

      Although the first generic icons with the circle could be nicer if the purple part is bright red. as it would then be a stylized representation of the ff logo.

    14. Matt wrote on

      Same here. System 1, with the browser icons from system 2.

    15. Khanti wrote on

      Totally agree: Group 1 + Group 2 browser icons.

    16. A. wrote on

      The same here: if I were forced to choose among these two sets, I’d choose System 1, but with the fluid and roundish fox for the general-purpose browser icon from System 2. (The fox icon in System 1 has too many angles and edges.)

      On the other hand, I find that no set of icons gives the user the slightest clue about what the corresponding application is supposed to do. What are “Reality” and “Focus”, and why are they well represented by those icons depicted above? Why is the idea of secrecy well represented by an asterisk inside an interrupted circle? If I were Mozilla, I would run a competition and ask for better results, as it has been successfully done for the current logo (“moz://a”).

    17. Peter wrote on

      Agree with the above, system 2 for the general purpose browser icons (although I think the _current_ fox for the browser with less “hair” would be preferable). For the brand, I’m split between the two – I like the new “head-on” fox, but the nostalgic in me feels the system 2 brand feels more like home (coming from someone who used Phoenix 0.1).

      The rest of the icons, definitely system 1. Apart from the main brand and the general purpose browser icons, the rest of the system 2 icons look like utter crap to be blunt. I’m not really sure what some of those icons are for (both system 1 and 2), and more or less all of them are just “graphics” (apart from focus, reality and rocket in system 1 maybe) with no real clue as to what they’re meant to symbolize.

      1. Vincenzo wrote on


      2. Mat wrote on


    18. A Purohit wrote on

      Agreed with the above!

    19. Daniel wrote on


    20. Jason Carter wrote on

      System 2 Masterbrand and General Browser, System 1 everything else

      1. AG wrote on

        Agree with Jason Carter.

      2. Antoine wrote on

        Same for me

      3. Nick wrote on


      4. gorn wrote on

        System 1 with system 2 masterbrand. If the browser icons come from 1 or 2 – i do not care that much. System 1 is much more coherent – system 2 does not make it look like one brand.

    21. Daniel wrote on

      Definitely group 2 for browser icons, but for the rest I’m not happy to choose one of them. I think they’re too coloured, like for games or something…

    22. Lucas Rodrigues wrote on

      Yesss, exactly what I was thinking

    23. Adam wrote on

      This is the way to go.

    24. Dread Knight wrote on

      +1, just what I wanted to suggest as well.
      Wish this blog was using disqus though xD

    25. Garett wrote on

      I agree with Tyler as well.

    26. Gabe wrote on


    27. Kostas wrote on

      Totally agree!!!
      I prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2.

      1. Anthony wrote on

        Same here, group 1 with browser icons from group 2 !

    28. Nick wrote on

      Came here to post this exactly, system 1 with the browser icons from system 2 would look best.

    29. Fabian Winder wrote on

      Agree to that too

    30. Ovidiu wrote on


    31. Mark wrote on


    32. Greg wrote on

      I’ll agree with this as well. I like the system 2 masterbrand and browser icons but system 1 is better for the rest. I’d be okay with the system 1 masterbrand though.

      I’ll also add that having just the head and tail on the system 1 browser icons feels very wrong, like it’s a weird tadpole/sperm creature. While having the paw isn’t necessarily essential, it serves as a good marker for conveying a sense of the body, which is. I know the trend is toward simplifying logos, and I find losing the blue interior for the planet works better than losing the paw and any sense of the body. The circular outside and sharp angles also gives it a much cleaner look than the softer system 1 design, which looks mushy by comparison.

    33. Oscar Diaz wrote on

      Same here, Browser icons in group 2 feel right: the necessary amount of shapes, but the icons are missing something, is in the line approach? coloring?… something that is well executed in group 1…

      Group #1, with browser icons from Group #2, is the way to go!

    34. Joseph wrote on

      Remember that these aren’t even close to the final designs. I definitely see the “cheap” aspect of them and I certainly would be with you if these were the final designs, but as these are extremely early designs I would hesitate to dismiss system 2

      1. Daniel wrote on

        I totally agree.
        I immediately fell in love with the master brand and the desktop browser icons of system 2, because they look more grown-up than their counterparts. Without the globe, they also look evolved.
        The other icons are beautiful too, they just need to be more distinct.

        1. Amir wrote on


    35. Greg wrote on


    36. Alexina Paiement wrote on

      I’ll agree, however I like the masterbrand icon and think that could be used for the browser icon too.

    37. jstvz wrote on


      System 1, with browser icons from system 2.

    38. Inna wrote on

      I agree as well. Prefer group 1 with the browser icons from group 2.

    39. Marian wrote on

      Yes, browser icons from system 2 look better.

    40. CaneMint wrote on

      +1 here

    41. Emanuel wrote on

      Ditto with Tyler!

    42. Enrique Cue wrote on

      I also like browser icons nº2 including Firefox masterbrand icon.
      I think Masterbrand 1 is a nice icon, but not for Firefox.
      For the apps, I prefer nº1.

    43. liam wrote on


    44. Jed wrote on

      Exactly what I was going to say!

    45. John wrote on


    46. Kevin wrote on


    47. JaviPérez wrote on


    48. flux_capacitor wrote on

      System 1 Masterbrand is a masterpiece of design. Use it, and use it for the browser icon too! Bold move!

      If you prefer small steps, System 2 browser icons are better though.

    49. Pascal Lessard wrote on

      System 1 with System 2 browser icons : I was going to post the exact same thing.

      Although, when all is said and done, both systems browser icons are good, so I could live with both. I love the fact that the fox is looking forward in both submissions, giving a feel of determination (or even pride). In the current logo, the fox is looking away, as if shy or sad for the lost past (“sorry to be here”, he seems to say).

      As for the main logo, the System 1 is genius. It says “Fox” clearly, but in a new way. The System 2 main logo is once again a nod to the past. Nothing wrong with the past, but the message that I feel moz:lla wants to send is that “this is a browser that’s relevant today and in the future”. And while it’s not good to ditch the past, a different logo sends the message that Firefox is nimble. Besides, this is exactly what Firefox was, historically : a break from the old, heavy Mozilla Dinosaur.

    50. STrRedWolf wrote on

      I have to agree with the split, where group 1 gets the majority, but group 2’s browser icons are better… but not all the way there. I would use group 2’s browser icons with the blue “world” used in group 1.

    51. Omri wrote on

      Agree completely. System 1 without the GitLab logo, and the browser icons in 2 are better, too.

    52. Etienne wrote on

      I agree to that, group 1 with browser icon of group 2.

    53. Hiromi Ohta wrote on

      Yes, me too. +1

    54. Human wrote on

      Definitely agree on the Firefox icons. Group 2’s are much better and keep the essence of Firefox’s previous logo much more intact than group 1. I don’t much like the browser icons in either group though. Maybe a few from each are okay, but neither group is a clear winner, but group 2 is a bit worse for me.

    55. Evan wrote on

      I agree

    56. MCE wrote on

      What Tyler said. System 1 looks much better, more modern and sleek… except for the general purpose browser icons – those look like chunkier/clunkier foxes compared to the System 2 versions.

      I also liked the System 1 masterbrand icon, until I saw GitLab’s logo. That’s not gonna work.

    57. Bella wrote on

      Same here, I prefer System 2 Masterbrand and general browser, System 1 everything else.

      System 2 Masterbrand retains the unique and familiar feeling of Firefox. System 1 is nice, sharp, but in its geometric style, way too generic and similar to what is out there already.

      System 2 general browser icons are perfect, they are smooth, symmetrical, not too crowded, they have a good flow anatomically and they look updated to a modern feel but retain the Firefox unique theme. System 1 general browser icons look too small next to the rest of the pack, anatomically the curling of the fox looks forced and cramped, and with the circle there they look too crowded.

      System 1 single browser and apps icons have better colors, are more contrasting as stand-alones and more unified between all of them. And they go together with the Masterbrand and general browser icons from System 2 better, because optically they have about the same weight, whereas System 2’s rest of the icons in that line style look out of place and too thin and also very bland and generic.

    58. Kotty wrote on

      My thoughts exactly! I like the System 1 icons more except for the browser icons.

    59. Tom wrote on

      I agree! The browser icon from group 2 looks nice, but for the rest group 1 icons look better :)

    60. Martin wrote on

      Me too! Group 1 with Group 2 browser icons.

    61. Michele Beltrame wrote on

      The main browser icon, in my opinion, should be the one of Group 2: it doesn’t change the previous logo so much to make it difficult to recognize, and it’s beautiful. Also, the general purpose browser icons.

      I’m not so sure about the new app and services icons in that group, they’re a bit too different. However, the main browser icon is what really matters, so I’d go for Group 2 definitely.

    62. Sebastian wrote on

      I agree. I like the icons from group 1 more. But for the masterbrand and the browser icon, I prefer group 2, the swirly logo is cool.
      The other one really does remind me too of GitLab.

    63. Nik wrote on

      I agree with Tyler

    64. Guillaume wrote on

      I totally agree ! :)

    65. Torbins wrote on

      I fully agree with Tyler. In overall, System 1 is better, but with browser icons and main icon from System 2.

    66. Denis wrote on

      Me too. Exactly like that.

    67. Walter R wrote on


    68. Andy Barnes wrote on

      Totally agree with Tyler.

      Prefer browser icons from group2 (including master brand), and everything else from group 1.

    69. Félix wrote on

      I’d prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2 >>> yes me too +1

      Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. It’s a good way to feel part of the Firefox project.

    70. Seb wrote on


    71. Nicolò P. wrote on

      I agree with the fact that the “System 1” icons are better but their general-purpose browser icons have some problems. I think the problem of the “System 1” general-purpose browser icons is the fact that the fox’s head seems to be unnaturally squashed downwards and the tail develops too vertically creating an ovalized optical effect. Another small problem with all “System 1” icons is, in my opinion, the excessive use of magenta. I tried to make some quick approximate changes to the first general-purpose browser icon of the “System 1” based on my taste.

      1. Nicolò P. wrote on

        Sorry, I forgot the link.

    72. Karatek_HD wrote on

      I think so too!

    73. Andrew wrote on

      I agree

    74. Lucca wrote on

      This was my thoughts exactly. Also it was the first comment I saw. Coincidence? I don’t think so. :D

    75. ZeroAurora wrote on


    76. Tasos G wrote on

      +1 for this!!!

    77. Gabriel wrote on

      Definitely, Group 1 with Group 2 browser icons.

    78. Luxor wrote on


    79. Sk1N wrote on


    80. Dina Michl wrote on

      Loving System 2 Firefox Masterbrand Icon, you cannot lose the identity you already created with the tail, it’s too well executed to leave behind please! I really like System 2 General-purpose browser Icons for the same reason.
      I like System 1’s Sigularly-focused browser icons and Icons for new apps & services. This is tough though, the design language will need to be refined to look more unified, but great start!

    81. guimp wrote on

      my thoughts exactly

    82. Kevin Collins wrote on

      Agree, Group 1 with Group 2 browser icons

    83. Lolitta Tracy wrote on

      I agree! I love System 1’s primary logo and how innovative and fresh it feels, while still maintaining the brand’s roots. But I do prefer System 2’s browser icons as they feel more consistent with System 1’s primary logo.

      1. Adrien wrote on

        Like others, I prefer System 2’s browser icons and System 1 others icons.
        System 1’s brower icons is too close of gitlab logo.

    84. Matas wrote on

      I’d definitely prefer icon-set System 1 with master-icon from System 2.

    85. Naveed Ahmed wrote on


    86. John Kim wrote on

      I give props to both Systems, but System 1 looks far more modern and eye-catching. System 2 looks like a cheap knock-off of an icon pack. System 1 masterbrand icon is lit btw! bb

    87. Ryan Thompson wrote on

      I am certainly with this guy.

    88. Deon wrote on

      Thump up

      I think the same. Group 2 is better look and fresh

    89. Richard wrote on

      I was about to say the same :)

    90. Victor wrote on

      Good idea ! It’s perfect : Group 1 with Group 2 browser icons

    91. Natacha wrote on

      Same opinion.
      Good luck with the brand architecture, I’m in the middle of one so I know it can be tough (but super inspiring as well)

    92. Elodie wrote on

      I will say the same, I’d prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2 which is really really lovely and seems more to feet the spirit of firefox, in my mind.

    93. 0cool_f wrote on

      +1 can’t agree more, this is the first thing I thought

    94. Ondřej Bárta wrote on

      +1 Came here to say just that 👆

    95. Guilherme wrote on

      Exactly. +1.

    96. Bianca wrote on

      Exactly what I think, too!

    97. Ali wrote on

      I agree!

    98. Paul wrote on

      I think in the same way. Full quote. System 1 bit with System 2 general-purpose browser icona.

    99. Joshua Smith wrote on

      I agree as well. System 1 has the strongest identity, but it is diminished by the clunky feeling of its browser icons. I feel it would be best if the dynamic beauty of the browser icons in System 2 could be incorporated.

    100. Antoine wrote on

      Totally agree

    101. Goudie wrote on

      One comment says everything. +1 !

    102. Norbert wrote on

      Yes! First system with 2nd system’s Firefox logos is the best option. Icons in the first look more solid which I like, but I also like silhouettes idea on the second icons though.

    103. David wrote on

      Yup, exactly my thoughts. The app icons from group one (1) are too amazon-ish and don’t feel unique. I think fresh and different when I think Firefox so the icons should convey that.

    104. Kevin S wrote on

      I agree with Tyler – Group 1 but with the group two browser icons. The white middle is better.

      Great work though – looking sharp!

    105. Maqbool wrote on

      Yup Group 1 for sure

    106. Daan wrote on

      Same. +1

    107. Sudeshana wrote on


    108. Alexander White wrote on

      I agree

    109. Brandon D’Souza wrote on

      Same here, system 2 browser icons with the rest of system 1

    110. Jack wrote on

      Agreed! System 1 is way better for the most part but the browser icons of set 2 are way better.

    111. Kloten wrote on

      Absolutely agree with Tyler!

      I prefer style of group 1 icons, but i think, that browser icons from group 2 are better.

    112. Nicolas Kirchner wrote on

      Agreed too ! I love the system 1 masterbrand icon (it reminds the gitlab icon but not so much, it’s not confusing), the sticker will proudly appear on the hull of my computer. This change of logo shows the revival of Mozilla, with Rust, Quantum, and all that sexy stuff coming. Chrome had this image of modernity, to Firefox to steal the show

      The masterbrand logo of system 2 is too neutral and without energy, and the new-app icons look out of context. The orange ones from system 1 are way better.

      On the other hand, yeah, I prefer the general-purpose browser icons of the system 2, those of the system 1 look a bit childish.

    113. Ashley wrote on

      Yes, agreed. System 1 but replace the browser icons with system 2.

    114. Weronika wrote on

      I think exactly the same!

    115. Crolug wrote on

      Agreed. Although I would differentiate DE and Nightly color patterns a little bit more as well, to be more easily distinguishable.

    116. Stirling wrote on

      Completely agree.

    117. bldr wrote on


    118. Anh wrote on

      Count me in! I would just switch the three Firefox icons on system 2 to system 1.

    119. Isaac wrote on

      Me too! Icons need to be easily identifiable, and that is the right combination to do so.

    120. Arthur wrote on

      Totally agree. Main logo and Browser icons looks better on 2. But the other icons looks better in 1

    121. Chris wrote on

      I’m with Tyler on the choices!

    122. Jan wrote on

      the same!

    123. Marlon Matus wrote on

      The same, group 1 but Firefox browser logos from group 2

    124. Nick wrote on

      I feel the same .

    125. helter985 wrote on

      This! +1

    126. Arkajyoti Pal wrote on

      Me too! System 1 with System 2 browser icons would be a great combo!

    127. Fabian Künzel wrote on


    128. Judie wrote on

      Agree with Tyler, also.

    129. Todd Crull wrote on

      Mostly agree. However, I think the System 1 Browser icons DO have merit and look more distinctively like a Fox. The System 2 Browser icons could be perceived simply as any dog (non-hound… pointy ears). Maybe take out the colored circle background. Simpler. I’m also a fan of the System 1 Browser “foxtail”. Again, more distinctly fox.

    130. Vuskaal wrote on


  2. Sylvia van Os wrote on

    I’m honestly unhappy with the system 1 masterbrand style, because it looks way too much like GitLab’s logo. Sadly, beyond that, I don’t really feel strongly for either type.

    1. Toby Evans wrote on

      Totally agree – very close to Gitlabs logo.

      I really prefer the rest of system 1 icons though. Just take the browser icons from system 2 and you’re done I recon.

    2. Olivier Eblé wrote on

      +1 on the “way too much like GitLab’s logo”.
      Anyway, Except for the general purpose icons, I really prefer the 2nd option.

  3. Jake Price wrote on

    Really great logos, I love them. I probably sway more to System 2, but both are superb. Look forward to seeing how the brand develops.

  4. jens1o wrote on

    The first one is really fancy! :) Really looking forward to it.

  5. Aru S. wrote on

    I feel like the System 1 masterbrand icon bears too-close a resemblance to GitLab’s.

    1. Bruno Garci wrote on

      I just thought the exact same thing… it’s just too close to Gitlab’s identity

      1. Travis wrote on

        Agreed – first thing that popped into my head was “Gitlab”.

      2. Ben wrote on


        I really like the System 2 logos. They communicate all the new features and services while still being immediately recognisable as Firefox.

    2. Christopher wrote on

      Came to say the exact same thing – System 1’s main icon is far too similar to GitLab’s.

      I prefer the Firefox logos of System 2, but prefer the other icons from System 1.

    3. John Dill wrote on

      Came here to say this. I think that newer icons should be made in the same visual style as the current Firefox icon, in fact.

    4. Jordan O wrote on

      100% When I first saw that I thought firefox and gitlab were making some sort of partnership

    5. Michele wrote on


  6. Marlena Jones wrote on

    I Like – System 1 Master Icon, System 2 general-purpose browser icons, System 1 Singularity-focused browser icons, & System 2 Icons for new app & services.

  7. Steven wrote on

    System 1 all the way, for sure. I say this mostly for the consistent use of the Firefox color palette, which results in icons that are near-instantly recognized as a Firefox app / service, but also come across (to me at least) as more clean and intuitive.

    1. David wrote on

      I agree completely.

    2. Jim Murphy wrote on

      Agreed, System 1 for sure. It must be a fox!

    3. Creative Spirit wrote on

      Agree, System 1 all the way. However, the Masterbrand icon from System 2 and General purpose browser icon again from System 2 are much better in flow and creativity,
      System 1 Masterbrand is too geometric and uninspiring

    4. André wrote on


  8. Markus wrote on

    I prefer the look of System 1. It feels more „unified“, and the „sharp“ and „edgy“ look is more modern (imo).
    However, I don‘t like the masterbrand icon. It‘s hardly recognisable as a fox.

    1. Al wrote on

      I completely agree. I prefer system 1 as a whole, but really prefer the system 2 masterbrand icon.

  9. matteo wrote on

    Even if I like the Masterbrand icon of the first version, I think the n.2 looks much better: it’s more balanced, readable and versatile.
    Anyway, great job!

    1. Vio wrote on

      Totally agree!

  10. Sammay wrote on

    I like the browser icons from Style 2, they retain the legacy. All other icons from Style 1 look best to me, but they can have more variations in color.

  11. Arty wrote on

    Really like the icons from System 2 better, but the way the colours are used in System 1 tie the brand together better. So System 2 with a colour scheme similar to System 1 seems like the way to go. Otherwise, System 2 seems like the way to go.

    1. Angela wrote on

      I’m with Arty.

  12. Ian wrote on

    If I were to pick one, it would be System 1, though I would hope that icon refinements would lead to slightly more delicate features. System 2 unfortunately reminds me of the iconography of Microsoft Office for Mac 2013, or looks like the design philosophy of a mid-2000’s anti-virus company (i.e., a brand whose product/service is so vague that even they have difficulty showcasing it to the general public, so it becomes a series of coloured waves). Overall, my other additional concern is that System 1 orbits too closely to Instagram’s colour scheme, and would be improved by finding an alternative to the blue and violet hues. System 2’s overall colour scheme is simply too diverse; by the time you get to the icons for new apps & services, they seem totally irrelevant to the original brand.

    My biggest concern is with the Masterbrand icons, because, to me, neither captures what Firefox is. System 1 is all fox, and System 2 is all fire. But System 1’s Masterbrand icon is still light years ahead of System 2’s in my affections; System 2’s is just awful. If System 1 could add even a hint of fiery elements, I think it would be a big win.

    I have no issue with the Firefox Quantum logo as it is — I think it’s gorgeous, actually. The general purpose browser icons of System 1 are similar, yes, but are far too clunky. The proportion of the internal “ball” (what used to be the globe) seems off compared to the fox band, and the entire icon seems like someone pinched it from the top to bottom. The System 1 icons are still the real winners, but could do with some messing around with proportions.

    Overall, this is really exciting!

    1. Andrew Tatge wrote on

      I’m inclined to agree Ian’s first paragraph, though I like the System 2’s firefox browser icons and System 1’s app icons.

      A lot of System 2 app icons remind me of MS Office 2005 with the soft curves, false depth (deeper than System 1 anyway) and abstract shapes. System 1’s polygon construction reminds me of certain computer games.

      If you did another iteration ;) I would like to see some of the color variety and depth within each system 1 app icon turned down a bit.
      (Does that become too Alphabet/Google-y?

      Some of system 2’s icons are much easier to parse quickly in grayscale (the rocket, the picture frame). I prefer them to the more complicated System 1 variants.

      At risk of embarrassing myself, System 2’s asterisk (security?) icon makes me think of Kurt Vonnegut’s depiction of a certain body part. I had the same reaction when Pentagram Studios redesigned Rotten Tomatoes logo—I was really surprised nobody called it out. Perhaps nobody else makes this association [shrug].

  13. Asif Youssuff wrote on

    Love the work happening here.

    Will say I strongly prefer System 2 from what has been posted here. Keep up the great work!

  14. Sashin wrote on

    I’m not sure if this view helps you much at all, but I like everything in the new designs. They look really, really cool.

  15. Altitude wrote on

    Well, one can think that for an open-source technology company, system 1 masterbrand logo really is too close to Gitlab’s.

  16. Matthew Ames wrote on

    I like both, and I like them for completely different reasons. I like System 2 from a desktop and mobile application standpoint. They look great as icons, and would fit in well with any device.

    However System 1 looks like it would be really awesome on merch, just like the T-shirt picture in the post.

    It would be a shame to ditch one style in favor of the other, when each has its clear advantages.

  17. Bob White wrote on

    Leave it alone.

    1. Kelly Rush wrote on

      HEAR HEAR!!! That said, I prefer all of System 2. Nothing in System 1 makers any sense to me.

    2. vic wrote on

      I agree with this the most. I actually liked the icon better before quantum.

  18. Jose wrote on

    They’re all beautiful but the System 1 brand logo is too similar to Gitlab’s logo so I’d go for System 2.

    1. Anon wrote on

      That’s the first thing I thought of too.

  19. Alex wrote on

    The first Masterbrand logo looks like the Gitlab logo.

    1. Trevor wrote on

      I came here just to say this exact thing.

  20. Robin wrote on

    Not sold on either of these really.

    System 1: ***

    Main icon looks almost like a book and equally unsatisfyingly almost like a fox’s face. In silhouette it doesn’t look like anything much.

    Browser icon is a solid refresh on the existing one. At least the head and tail are distinct organic shapes.

    Focused icons are okay. It’s a good colour scheme.

    System 2: *

    Main icon says nothing. Browser icon looks melted. Focused icons are a cute ‘mobius strip’ motif (which feels like it should be a continuation of something from the main icons) that is a little distracting. Very ‘telecoms company’ style and colours. (Looks like branding used by Three, Sky and BT in UK)

    I hope this process works out better than the one that resulted in the drunken holiday tattoo that is the current “Moz://a” brand identity.

  21. Gabriel wrote on

    Hi there ! 👋🏻
    I really like the openness of the process.

    Though I’m kind of attached to the three Firefox icons currently used + the Firefox Focus icon, I’d like to share my view on the two systems shown here.

    I really like the two masterbrand icons. I find them very refined and both represent Firefox to me, though the one in system 1 strangely reminds me of Gitlab too.

    I find the system 1 general purpose browser icons a bit too childish, as opposed to the refined icons we currently have. The system 2 general purpose browser icons are more mature to me.

    And for the other icons, I can see the bond inside system 1 but the icons for specialized browser + other apps in system 2 feel very misplaced next to the masterbrand and general purpose browser icons.

    Thanks again for sharing the process with the community !


  22. Marek Järve wrote on

    I personally feel like System 1 would be better. It’s bold and simple, while remaining familiar and recognizable.

  23. Manish Goregaokar wrote on

    The System 1 logos look like very much like the GitLab logo.

  24. Kiko Herrschaft wrote on

    I prefer System 2 for the following reasons:
    1 – The icon for the browser resembles better Firefox. The fox / flame around the globe is such a powerful image that I, as a designer, would avoid changing it too much.
    2 – I think this “sticker” style creates a better identity for the brand’s product groups. System 1 icons, on the other hand, may look like any other non-Mozilla apps.
    3 – I think the empty spaces express better Mozilla’s openness and transparency

    1. Pamela wrote on

      Thank you Kiko Herrschaft !

      I read exactly what I was thinking

      As a Designer, my vote goes to System 2

    2. Otto Richter wrote on

      Especially the master brand icon should not be changed to something else than the fox and the flame in my opinion.

  25. Thomas H. wrote on

    While I like both of them, System 2 looks much more visually enticing to me with its modern flat look, and seems to fit better with internet-related software.

  26. Devin wrote on

    The round master brand logo from System 2 looks like Firefox. The altered GitLab logo from System 1 is going to cause confusion, I think.

  27. Jason Fuller wrote on

    I think revamping the ‘fox’ for the master brand icon is a mistake, and instead you should revamp the T-rex in ‘System 1’ style

    General purpose Browser icons, all look good, I have no preference.

    Singularly Focused Browser icons: None of these reflect back onto the brand in an obvious way other than the coloring (and even then it’s not very obvious); it’d be nice to add a firefox tail or t-rex arm or something to them. While I prefer system 2 styling, the non-spaceship icons aren’t distinct enough from one another in System 2; if left unchanged, system 1 would be a better choice.

    Apps and services: System 1 icons all look the same when quickly scanning / don’t allow one to quickly identify each product from the other due to the overuse of similar coloring. System 2 icons, while a bit easier to distinguish from one another, are so abstract, that it’s difficult to figure out what type of product the icon might be representing. Thus I find both System 1 and System 2 apps and services equally unpleasant, and hope they are reworked.

  28. gurdulilfo wrote on

    Interesting news. Exciting, I would say. To answer your questions:

    – Do these two systems still feel like Firefox?
    Yes, both of them look like Firefox. The first one more so. If I saw the last five icons on the second system, I would not recognize them as part of Firefox family.
    – How visually cohesive is each of them? Does each hold together?
    I think the first system is more cohesive. The second system looks like 2 (or maybe even 3) groups of icons.
    – Can the design logic of these systems stretch to embrace new products in the future?
    I think the second system had more room in this regard since it is not as cohesive as the first one. It would allow more color vairation, etc.
    – Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for?
    Not sure, really. Probably the second system is better in this regard.
    – Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?
    I think the first system is a bit better, but I don’t see an emphasis on “people over profit” in either, to be honest.

  29. Hugo Leisink wrote on

    The System 1 fox head looks a bit like Gitlab’s logo.

  30. Rafael wrote on

    I think that the main icon set from the first system is really cool and artistic.
    But the additional apps and services icons are really confusing. On both systems there are icons that you could associate with a similar application, and there are other icons that doesn’t really tell anything.

    By this idea, even the main icons on both cases are a little confusing.

  31. Jason wrote on

    The system 1 main logo looks just like the GitLab logo.

  32. Neil J wrote on

    I think rebranding is dangerous and will lead to confusion and loss of “market share”. I think Mozilla for the foundation and Firefox for the browsery things is the right idea. If you want to make special browsers, something along the lines of “Firefox VR” would be okay. I love Firefox and have for a long time, please don’t change the name because some board member is bored.

  33. Tara Vancil wrote on

    Wow, great start!

    My immediate reaction is that system 1 departs from the friendly and welcoming feeling that the Firefox logo has always evoked. I think system 1 is fantastic and I won’t be disappointed if it’s chosen, but it feels more edgy-database-startup than friendly-browser-project.

    1. Chris Nason wrote on

      Exactly! I was struggling to put my thoughts into words, but you nailed it!

  34. Lily wrote on

    System 1 is cohesive, but the masterbrand and new apps & services icons are ugly.
    System 2 is not cohesive, and all the icons are ugly.

  35. Jeremiah Lee wrote on

    System 2 is the clear winner for me.

    System 1’s masterbrand icon is generic. The fox could be any company or product. System 2’s masterbrand icon keeps the iconic Firefox tail, the detail that if left is still identifiable as Firefox today.

    The System 2 general purpose icons are better. Foxes have legs. They’re not snakes, as System 1 suggests.

    The icons for new apps and services are weak in both systems. They both feel very generic. System 2’s icons have the advantage of being easier to discern at a smaller scale. The System 1 icons just become uniform little color blobs.

    1. Jacinta Cruz wrote on

      I, completely, agrre with Jeremiah Lee!

      I would like to see a system more cohesive and uniform in all the details (lines, shapes, colors, etc.), that brings us back to an unique and singular identity.

    2. Falippou Yoan wrote on

      I am ok with this. Création work!

    3. Kurt wrote on

      x2 on this comment.

  36. Emre Bilal Aydın wrote on

    I love System 1.

  37. Larry Beckham wrote on

    The current Firefox Quantum Browser Icon is perfection. Only thang I change is the word, Quantum, drop it in the next version.

    Anything else is not Firefox. Cut all ties to the name Firefox if it is NOT the Firefox Browser.

    Do not give this subject a lot of time and energy. Concentrate on making the Firefox the safest and most standard browser in the world. Comply to the spirit and the letter of the W3C standard and elimination all bugs you can as soon as can. That is the Prime Directive. All else is a secondary priority.

  38. Andrzej wrote on

    I prefer System 2 because it is more similar to the current logo, thus more recognizable.

  39. Jeffrey Marraccini wrote on

    I do like System 1. Sometimes it is good to be bold. Thank you for all you do, Mozilla Team!

  40. rugk wrote on

    Why yet another Firefox icon? I still enjoy the current one of Firefox Quantum and it looks great while staying close to Firefox origin’s/origin icon(s). And it has not been so long ago, where they’ve been updated.
    While I understand you may need more icons for Firefox VR and stuff like that, I don’t want to loose that current great Firefox logo by that, i.e. does it need such a whole redesign?

    As such, I really like the first version more, as it is closer to the origin icon. (the first line with the Firefox stable/dev/nightly icons). I’d even say the Firefox stable/dev/nightly icons of System 1 looks really great.
    As for the other’s listed below, I can hardly imagine what products they should belong to.

    I also like the first masterbrand icon. I can see the fox in it, so that’s nice, I don’t know where it should be used, as you have the real “Firefox” icons in the line below, but well… it “feels like Firefox”, at least.
    I mean, you explain, you may use it in marketing or so, but if there are too many icons for one Firefox that may confuse too many. At least if “Firefox” is still named “Firefox”, but there is then “Firefox – as the one, where all Firefoxes belong to” and “Firefox – the one, you know from desktop”. So you have the same name for the “group” and for the “single Firefox”.

    As for the second version:
    * In both the masterbrand and the Firefox icons, the holes do not look good. Maybe it’s just that emptiness there (the “hole” in the middle), where you totally expect the existing Firefox icons to have something.
    * Basically the Firefox icons look like the Firefox icons, but just the background removed. They really just look like the monochrome ones you already have (i.e., but with color, obviously. That is not very existing, i.e. it’s more something one would already/may actually have seen.
    * As I know get what the icons should mean: The one in system 2 for Firefox VR really just looks like the Atom editor.
    * Generally the v2 icons look very generic and could be used in a web font/as web icons for any project.
    * When you see the Firefox logos nearby the masterbrand one really looks similar, but basically it just looks like a “simplified [bad] copy” of the Firefox icon. It just says nothing and is, as the others, too generic. It has nothing “foxy”…
    * The System 2 “new apps & services”: The top left one, is that an alien or an umbrella? Sorry, but that’s what i see there. The same icon in System 1 is just some bars. No idea what this is supposed to mean…

    More notes about System 1:
    * There is a hard cut between the Firefox icons and the icons for other browsers/apps. I do not really see how they belong together visually.
    * I like the Firefox Nightly image, e.g. It is lightened from the bottom and has a nice 3d effect as I know from the current icons. Maybe you need some 3d models instead of simple icons ;) (maybe one wants to see the icons in Firefox VR).

    Generally, the three categories all are very separated:
    * line 1 (Firefox icons) are Firefox-style in both versions
    * line 2 (existing browsers): In v1 it has purple, in v2 it has “small” lines; both effects, which are not in the other icons
    * last lines (new products): v1: flat, also getting generic e.g. with the one with 2 layered diamonds;

    I.e. if you take them in this order, there is no strong “vertical connection” between them. It looks as if they were designed line by line… ;)


    Now as for the marketing/merch stuff at the bottom:
    * The t-shirt at the top right looks quite good. One can clearly see it is photoshopped and maybe the contrast is a bit high , but basically I like it.
    * The top left one also looks good. I really seem to like that icon…
    * As for the bottom ones, however, I have no idea what it is/I see no connection to Firefox at all. I mean, these may be nice gradient desktop images, but they could’ve been designed by anyone and look like they are one of these ones shipped by default by phone manufacturers/Android or so.
    Also, especially in the orange versions, I mostly just see a big white quote sign. So if they belong to some orange “Quote of your day” website, they would fit.
    * As for the nightly image in the middle, I least know that it should represent Nightly, because of the colors; but only because of the colors, which I know. Otherwise – from the part that can be seen – they just seem to be the same “quote” as the others.
    * In the middle image there are also the app icons in smaller versions with a background: And they look boring. It’s just the same color anywhere, just some orange, no 3d effects. The most existing one of these is still the Nightly one, but it’s also very flat, which is not the style of Firefox current icon. Also, generally, the light parts there seem to blend over into the background, as they are just too light.

  41. Miguel O. wrote on

    Yo I want those mobile wallpapers, those look gorgeous!

  42. bussdriver wrote on

    As one of the named volunteers on HTML5, I’m not your ordinary user. I do send 100s of new firefox users per year. I am NOT pleased with all these wasteful actions of mozilla over the years; the technical groups have been doing great work and mozilla’s MDN is a wonderful creation of it’s own which does not get enough attention.

    Where are the marketing …or better yet, the psychologists to curtail such foolish changes? You DO NOT mess with an established brand identity unless you are Internet Explorer (lipstick on a pig renamed “Edge” may fool many users but they still choose Chrome.)

    Stop trying to justify your jobs with pointless and harmful exercises under the excuse of evolution, which BTW, is about adaptation to survive. An visual identifier is nothing like that… unless your a horse needing to confuse predators by adding confusing stripes… in which case, here you WANT to be recognized and caught so you do not change it.

    HTML5 is more than old web. The planet is learning that; your browser is merely the gateway to it. You might do better than to change the logo to an html5 logo… Silly phone apps which WRAP sites are the current trend anyway. Are those apps powered by Firefox? nope. They should be and your logos will not be visible. Perhaps you should look into better app frameworks and designing tools for those… or more hooks into and out from the browser.

    1. Vladimir Krstic wrote on

      Pointing this out for years now, Mozilla has one of the worst design/UX team in the space. Doing some work just for the sake of doing it. Not evolving but overhauling constantly. Guys are slaves to the trends. Adding another “master” brand on the top of Firefox brand is silly, stupid and naive. Firefox’s position in the space is weakened enormously in the last seven years, what should we do? Let’s water down brand recognition, it should help!

      Mozilla’s rebranding was poorly executed, a pure artistic exhibition not a brand design. It didn’t do much of a damage though since Mozilla brand isn’t the one keeping it sustainable and competitive. Firefox is the one keeping the organization sustainable.

      Instead of improving Firefox UX you are wrapping it in five different products that can easily be combined in Firefox itself. Why? Because Google and Facebook are shipping five single purpose pilot apps per month (of which all five die in a matter of months)?

      To repeat me Mozilla is a slave of the trends without a clear vision. Sad for Mozilla’s devs and tech writers from MDN who are doing an amazing job!

  43. Michael wrote on

    This is so bad that I won’t even recognize anything. I know after quantum this horrible trend of bright colors and flat design is taking over, but what even is all this? There is no reason to butcher everything and paint it all the same color for the sake of rebranding.

  44. Hans Kokx wrote on

    Most immediately, I like option 1 better than option 2. They ALL feel like they’re heavily Instagram-inspired, though. Also, I like option 2’s master logo better than option 1’s.

    1. Ioannis wrote on

      Totally agree

    2. Creative Spirit wrote on

      Same for me. System 1 is better except for it’s master icon and generic browser icons

    3. Canta Dadlaney wrote on

      Couldn’t agree more.

  45. Bryan wrote on

    The general purpose icons from 2 need some more touching because I like them better at system 1; the Fox should have the same shape as it always has been.
    To a lot of users, if not most users (including me), Mozilla=Firefox and Firefox=Mozilla. The main logo should be a derivation of the famous round Firefox, so I would choose system 2.
    Also I’m not really a fan of the multiple colors so maybe stick with orange as much as possible?

    1. Creative Spirit wrote on

      Yes! My thoughts exactly.

  46. Luis Felipe Lino wrote on

    Both systems are visually amazing congratulations to the designers that worked on these project but system 2 seems more aligned and easy to identify with the Brand.

    Adicionally the icons from system 2 looks more modern and clean.

  47. Bob James wrote on

    At the highest level, I don’t understand why Mozilla is trying to remove the animals and the heart – the fox – from the brand. Feels like betraying the values and brand identity in a fundamental way. Beyond that, other than the fox-like icons, every other icon feels unattached to product. One looks like an atomic symbol? Another is a snap on wristband? Please… don’t abandon the Fox. :)

  48. Luis Felipe Lino wrote on

    Actually I would choose System 1 masterbrand icon with all others icons from system 2.

    Masterbrand from system 1 looks powerful.

  49. Emily wrote on

    I initially posted this on another site in response, but I thought best that it should go here as well:
    System 1 looks good because the icons are friendly and inviting, and readable.
    Since you are still tweaking the logos, please don’t go too simplistic, because otherwise the logo will lose its personality and feel cold and utility corporate-like. To me your brand is all about openness, inclusiveness, and friendliness. A friendly looking fox with personality in its design is better at implying the above than a plain swirly. I don’t want to see serious and stuffy corporate symbols when it comes to the Firefox brand.
    Some might interpret the first system as too cutesy-cute and emoji-ish, but to me that system is on a better track in terms of personality than the rest.
    Thank you for showing us your ideas. Please post how the the development is going. I’m very interested.
    By the way, are you going to sell merchandise to the public? That picture of the guy wearing the shirt with the logo made me think that you would.

  50. Enjel wrote on

    I like System 2 more. It has sharper, more defined shapes with strong visual distinction between each icon.
    System 1 is not okay, everything looks like a blob and they are not immediately distinguishable. System 1 too uniform for the items to be recognizable at a glance. The visual compositions of the icons in System 1 is also too dense. More variation in the colors for System 1 would be good.

    I think System 2 is much more promising direction considering both set’s current incarnations.

  51. Mehdi Sadeghi wrote on

    System 1 looks very much like a set of GitLab icons.

  52. Robin wrote on

    I like the outline approach of System 2

  53. Jeb Bush wrote on

    System 1 for me. It’s clean, modern, and cohesive.

  54. Jeremy wrote on

    The current icon for firefox is rather nice. It’ll be a shame to see it evolved into a more abstract form.

  55. A.J. Kandy wrote on

    1) The twisty ribbon motif is very “now” but may look dated in the near future.
    2) Similarly, gradients.

    From a functional standpoint, solid icons are easier to perceive as objects; outline icons tend to be perceived as text characters or take longer to recognize, particularly with additional elements of gradient, twist and shadow added.

    I like the bolder direction of System 2’s icon shapes generally, but I also think System 1’s solid object approach reads better.

    System 1’s masterbrand icon seems awfully close to Gitlab’s. I wouldn’t go down that path.

    There is a lot of recognition and brand equity built into the existing fox-swirl; I would try to bring clarity and timelessness to that icon with a more geometric approach, a la Chermayeff & Geismar / Paul Rand, that is recognizable at any size, printed in black, etc. (for instance, this guy:

  56. CK wrote on

    Master Brand:
    System 1’s doesn’t connect to me as anything Firefox/Mozilla related, tbh. it reminds me of Gitlab (Git hosting) and nothing else. The System 2 master brand logo feels more like a ‘catch all’, more generic Firefox logo.

    General Purpose Browser icons:
    I feel like System 2 is a better continuation of the Firefox logo, it’s missing the globe but keeps the shape and recognizable contour.
    I prefer this over the System 1, the issue there is, in my opinion, that the globe has gotten way too abstract (no details at all, what’s it going to represent?) and the distorted Fox doesn’t feel too good.

    Singularly focused browser icons & app icons:
    I like the design of System 1 better. Although I have trouble with both Systems in these categories, they don’t seem to match anything else with the overall brand / other browser icons besides the colouring. The logo for “Focus” / Firefox Focus may well be a product from a totally different company, I see no continuation, no connection to Firefox or Mozilla in this particular logo. The same goes as well with the other app icons, they look to… generic? The ‘dashed’ appearance (breaks within the lines) doesn’t really help.

    The Firefox logos in System 2 fill the space better (for lack of better terms) and use a three-stroke pattern with slightly differing colors, I’m not sure if and how this could be applied to the other icons but I guess it might also work instead of icons made out of thick outlines.

    1. William wrote on

      Hi CK – Have you taken a look at GitLab recently? They do way more than Git hosting- project and portfolio management, integrated CI/CD, application security testing, monitoring, etc. But, they don’t do browsers :) and I agree system 1 does look too much like the GitLab tanuki logo.

  57. D. Colin wrote on

    I prefer the logo with the fox face (system 1). It feels less cold and neutral than the other one.

    I like both version of the general browser icons. One thing that I find problematic with all the icons that are proposed is that it’s hard to decipher some of them. The mix of color aren’t really low vision friendly. #a11y

    Anyway, I’m eager to see the next iteration :). Keep up the good work!

  58. TriptoAfsin wrote on

    1st 6 of the icons from system 1
    2nd 6 from the system 2

  59. Alan French wrote on

    I think the masterbrand icon of system 1 resembles more Sauron’s helmet than Firefox. Clearly, the masterbrand icon of system 2 is a lot more recognisable. The system 2 browser icons are also lighter and friendlier. The system 1 browser icons are weighted down by the compact dark centre. On the other hand, all the other icons (focused and services) have a lot more visual identity in their system 1 versions. The system 2 icons are too thin and wiry, don’t resemble Firefox at all, and the different colours across apps and services prevent easy recognition. If system 2 apps and services icons were to be considered, they should at least stay all within the red/orange “fire” colour scheme. As it is, they fail to provide a strong, recognisable identity, while system 1 icons are instantly recognisable as part of one brand.

    Best wishes! AF

  60. Daniel wrote on

    The system 1 masterbrand icon looks too similar to the Gitlab icon.

    Apart from that I hate it when people waste resources on something as insignificant as this.
    Keep the icon as it is and do something that people will benefit from, like futher reducing the memory footprint of Firefox.

  61. anonymousNotanonymous wrote on

    System 1 but I don’t like the apps and services ones because they’re not recognizable things. And I don’t like any of System 2. They look noodly and kinda like the “One Laptop per Child” iconography.

  62. Nathan Hubbard wrote on

    As far as “screen-shotting and file sharing to innovative ways to access the internet using voice and virtual reality”, please build a browser without all of this stupid crap in it.

    Everything that isn’t needed to browse the internet should be an addon.

    I don’t care what you call your brand, just don’t damage the browser further.

  63. Steve wrote on

    For the Firefox masterbrand icon and the general propose icons i prefer System 2 and for everything else System 1

  64. Ekaterina Oblonskaya wrote on

    The system 1 masterbrand is dangerously close to Gitlab. And even if you want overall branding to change, can we please just keep the traditional logo for the main Firefox browser.

  65. svasta wrote on

    i generally like it. i think firefox also needs visual modernisation, not only tech one. i mostly prefer system 1 over sytem 2. i also mostly find the lowest level icons not good enough yet.

  66. Chris wrote on

    I realize that this is an industry-wide design trend, but… it’s so hard to tell what these icons are supposed to represent.
    The camera aperture icon in System 2 is so far removed from what it represents, that I couldn’t tell what it was supposed to be until I saw the System 1 version.
    I stared at System 1’s masterbrand for a while, pondering why it was a corner of a wall (that is curvy towards the bottom) behind a transparent piece of glass, before realizing it was supposed to be a fox face. It’s confusing, but at least it’s unique; System 2’s masterbrand is so similar to the Firefox logo that the rest of the icons look unrelated.
    The rest of System 2’s icons look like they’re from Samsung. But System 1’s colors are very pretty. I like the current Quantum Firefox logo’s orange-purple-blue scheme, and System 1 uses it well.

    Overall, I think System 1 is better.

  67. Yuri Gauze wrote on

    System 2. But, I believe that some icons should be exchanged between the systems

  68. Joel Collins wrote on

    I honestly think System 1, by a long way. The icons for system 2 look more generic and lack as much personality.

  69. Gopal wrote on

    The over all System 1 has the intuitive design with neat appearance. BUT the logo is similar to FireFox bike. 😒

    System 2 has same Firefox logo with the modern touch. BUT other icons aren’t as lovely as system 1

    Live Long FireFox! Loving it since 2005

  70. Rishi Anand wrote on

    System 2 designs are much better for their relative simplicity. Besides some of the system 1 designs are associated with other projects, AFAIK.

  71. Judd wrote on

    The gradients in System 2 are half-arbitrary, mixing intentional cues with ‘filler’ gradients. I’m inclined to say System 1 is a simpler and more powerful design language. It allows for more flexibility as trends in colorways and styling evolve over the next ten years.

  72. Richard Brummel wrote on

    I really don’t see the need for either set of the changes and would have hoped that Mozilla would use the resources in continuing to make great products. You have a great, recognizable brand. Don’t mess with it.

    1. Jerald Vinikoff wrote on

      I agree with Richard Brummel.

      1. Chris wrote on

        I agree, too.

  73. Leon Robinson wrote on

    Nothing intuitive about any of it, who cares.
    Don’t screw with what has been working.
    Longtime Seamonkey user.

  74. Md Enzam Hossain wrote on

    I like the master icon of the first set a lot.
    The first set of icons looks cohesive, like they belong in a group.
    The second set of icons looks fun, but the app icons at the bottom doesn’t looks cohesive to me, the colors doesn’t reflect Firefox enough.

  75. Ryan Spooner wrote on

    System 2 for the first two categories (master icon and browser icons) combined with System 1 for the other two categories. The System 2 ones for new apps and services just don’t seem to fit the theme. Just my $0.02 :)

  76. Alex wrote on

    System 2

  77. Andre wrote on

    System 2 FTW

  78. Sam wrote on

    I’m all for rebranding, but I’m concerned that the system 1 masterbrand looks too much like the gitlab logo. When I look at it, all I can think of is gitlab. Regardless of this point, I’m in favour of system 2.

  79. Vitor Santos wrote on

    I loved the system 1 icons.
    In my opinion, is more familiar with Red Fox and Mozilla Foundation brand.

  80. Caskin wrote on

    How about a 3rd option, these do not feel like Mozilla

  81. Ahmer Jamil Khan wrote on

    They both look great, however System 1 looks more modern, and slightly better than System 2.

  82. Paul Tincknell wrote on

    The Firefox icon needs the detail to remain visually relevant when very small (favicon, taskbar, etc.), so the browser set from “system 2” is more relevant than those of “system 1.” However, the remaining icons/logos from “system 2” are cartoonish and way too simplistic to be of interest, nor do they connect visually as a family to the browser set – and the “masterbrand” is too abstract to be visually meaningful. So between the two, the “system 1” set with the “system 2” browser icons would be the best choice for maintaining consistency with the past, having enough visual detail to be rendered small (and remain recognizable). Best advice: don’t stray too far from the past; you can break a brand easier than build one.

  83. Steffen wrote on

    This one is easy. System 1. It’s overall just the better looking one. System 2 looks like a bunch of stickers that I can’t take seriously, even though the quality is high. Problem is, System 1 is in a while different league.

  84. Nehemoth wrote on

    System 1 Masterbrand Icon
    System 2 General Purpose
    System 2 Singularly
    System 1 Apps Icons (definitely I would change the colors like system 2)

  85. Bob wrote on

    I like all from “System 1” except “masterbrand icon”, I prefer “masterbrand icon” from “System 2”.

  86. Paul H wrote on

    I liked the second set best.

  87. Eitan Isaacson wrote on

    I love all of these designs.

    We have a problem where our developer edition and nightly logos are two similar and rely on nuanced color to distinguish one from the other. People who are color blind will have a hard time.

    Our current logos have some additional elements that help people tell them apart, but these new simplified designs do not.

    Check out what it looks like in a color blindness simulator..

  88. Kevin wrote on

    System 2 icons look like they are from an obscure icon pack on google play store. I really like the System 1 icons they have way better personality than the other set of icons. As for the Masterbrand icon, i personally prefer the the Fox head icon over the default browser icon. But it boils don to the brand recognition. Right now the default browser icon can be recognized by pretty much anyone. But the Fox head will take some time to get familiarized with . Going for forward if the focus will be developing different apps then the Fox Head will be a better choice

  89. lucia wrote on

    system 1 is more modern and looks more cohesive.

  90. Semih wrote on

    System 2 icons are better. But masterbrand icon of system 1 is super!

  91. Sophie wrote on

    I love the system 1 Masterbrand icon!
    I think that the system 1 browser icon is better than the system 2 browser icon because it keeps the blue and overall color scheme that I associate with the browser. I think that removing the overall color palette from the browser icon would be a huge loss.
    Overall I like system 1 more than system 2. I think that sticking with a warm palette for the new apps and services helps tie the brand to the existing known browser brand. I find the range of color in the singularly focused browser icons in system 1 to be distracting. The blue could either become warmer towards purple or the use of purple/magenta could go away so that the blue stands out more.

  92. Kevin Macaulay wrote on

    I prefer the system 2 but the “singurlaly-focused browser icons” secssion with other colours. “Singurlaly-focused browser icons” from system 1 are beatiful too.

  93. spikespaz wrote on

    I do not like the System 1 icons. The half-low-poly design looks too plain and it isn’t majestic like a fox should be. The System 2 icons are better in that regard, however they would look strange on differently colored backgrounds. There needs to be something in the middle. And by that note, the current icons for Quantum, Nightly, and Developer Edition fit the bill. Perhaps even keep the blue gradient circle in the new System 2 icons? I like the design of the current icons of a fox encompassing a world. I don’t think it really needs to change, and I would like to see some icons for the other apps and services based off of the design of the current Quantum icon.

  94. Kevin Davis wrote on

    I love System 1, however, the “masterbrand” icon seems a little too close to Gitlab.

  95. Tristan Young wrote on

    I prefer icon set #2, however I’m not a fan of either. If the old firefox icons were kept, I would feel most happy.

  96. David Imel wrote on

    I really like the system 2 brand icon but I much prefer the system 1 icons for everything else. Just my two cents!

  97. Theo Rulko wrote on


    I love the design and the curvy modern aesthetic with vibrant colours. They feel friendly and fresh. I strongly prefer the first system, as I feel that the icons fit better together, wheras in the second system they all fit together except the Quantum/Nightly/Developer icons, which do not seem like they share a design aesthetic and stand out. Additionally, I like how the ‘master’ logo is not the same as the quantum/developer/nightly logos in the first system, making the overall brand feel broader than just those three browsers. However, I really love the paw on the fox, as I feel that it is one of the most endearing qualities of the current logo, and I would love if the paw were added back to the new logos.


  98. Moreno Valerio wrote on

    Well, I do like some changes. But please, don’t change the logo to something like the system 1. Firefox is about the world, and a Fox (like flame) running around it. To put only the fox head, is to mischaracterize, to disfigure the firefox brand. Something that always comes to my mind when I think about Firefox is the circle Fox. That should be it.

  99. John Doe wrote on

    System 1 all the way! More unique and memorable

  100. Aaron Abassi wrote on

    I like the system 1 look better.

  101. Boy Guy wrote on

    I love the second one but I do not like the new apps and services icons

  102. David Naylor wrote on

    Cool! System 1 gets my vote. Feels the most cohesive with the current brand.

  103. Franco wrote on

    I love the first system, though, the second system’s Browser Icons get to my feels (mostly because of the paws) however If I understand correctly, the ones from the first system are better because of their simplicity and distinctive elements (such as the big ears and no paws :( ) as they’ll be easier to read in any size.

  104. Seb wrote on

    System 1 to me feels like the overall design is more coehsive, but I don’t particularly like how it is all focussed on the same very refined colour palette. It’s not as dynamic. The second style is definitely more dyanmic, while still keeping a consistent feel. I like the colour choices, and feel like they would go well as Application Icons. However, I really like Style 1’s new main logo. I think changing up the entire brand logo would be a really neat play.

    I’ve circled and cannot choose haha.

  105. Ani Naser wrote on

    Personally I prefer System 1 as a whole. The colors feel like they create a more cohesive branding, and I’m not a fan of the light gray backgrounds on System 2 icons. All designs however are quite modern and eye-catching and I applaud all of the designers who created them!

  106. Denis Kolesnikov wrote on

    Looks very neat and vivid! Great job!

  107. Eliz Kılıç wrote on

    First of all, I think the decision to update the design identity is spot on. For the systems, I don’t think second one is consistent. It feels like 2 sets (brand and browser, and the rest) have been put together as an alternative. Having different colors for different apps is not a bad approach but I think orange flame is already a well known brand color of firefox. Therefor I think you should proceed with System 1.

  108. Todd wrote on

    System 1 is better overall, but the fox is cuter in System 2. Perhaps there’s a way to combine the best of both worlds…?

  109. Ryan Hayle wrote on

    Firefox is the browser, full stop. The “master brand” that it and all other products should fall under is Mozilla.

    These designs are terrible—they look like they were designed by some marketing douchebag who is trying to apply everything he or she learned in their overpriced degree program without any real-world experience. The existing Firefox logo is great—probably the best one you’ve ever had.

    Stop wasting money on things that aren’t necessary! All of your time and resources should be put into code and standards advocacy for an open, private internet.

    Fire your entire marketing department. They serve no purpose in an open source project. Stop acting like a corporation. It just continues to turn people away from your products.

    1. JustOff wrote on

      I totally agree.

  110. Lycurgus wrote on

    The masterbrand icon in system 1 looks too much like the Gitlab logo, which has gotten pretty big recently after MS acquired Github.

    The general-purpose browser icons in system 1 look nice, very reminiscent of the classic Firefox logo but more sleek and modern. The blue sphere also keeps it easily distinguishable from the masterbrand icon.

    My personal recommendation: Use the general-purpose browser icons from System 1, and use everything else from System 2.

  111. Hohotun wrote on

    System 1 feels more consistent. But I personally don’t like Masterbrand icon.

  112. Marlon wrote on

    I like the System 1 icons, especially the ones for the browser. They are what I expect of the brand and look comfortable (not jarring, compressed, to the point).

    I don’t like the System 2 icons though. Here is why :

    The white-space in in the center of the Firefox logo strikes me as odd. It looks wonderful on the Masterbrand Logo, but I don’t expect the emptiness in the actual Firefox Logo to be there.

    Another gripe are the shadows/motions that are engraved in the lines of the other System 2 icons. They make the shapes appear busier, something I’m not expecting with your brand. Having those and the gradient seems overwhelming.

    The outlines for the System 2 icons disrupt the circle on the Firefox logo. They add to an already busy icon. They’re also barely visible with a white background. They might stand out on a black or grey background (which is important to me, as a Dark Theme user).

    One last word on the System 1 Masterbrand :
    I don’t think it fits in with the rest. It’s a lot more angular than the Firefox Logo (which most people will see/recognize). Maybe shape the ears in a curved manner, like you did with in the Firefox Logo. The cheeks/ chin looks very flat as well. The snout is unusually sharp when compared to everything else.

    I hope I could help.

  113. Raleigh wrote on

    Please don’t simplify the logo too much. I’ve used Firefox almost exclusively since around 2005 and I miss the more detailed logos. I’d have to vote for system 1 since the general browser icons seem more familiar to the brand.

  114. Sean wrote on

    System 1. Although I think I like System 2’s general-purpose browser icon shapes, all the other shapes of System 1 make me think of Mozilla/Firefox. System 2’s icons are a bit “complex” with the folds and shadows which I personally don’t find attractive. System 1’s icons are a _bit_ abstract, though. Still—I prefer System 1.

  115. Martin Anderson wrote on

    System 1 for the Masterbrand.
    System 2 for the General Purpose Browser Icons.
    System 2 for the Singularity Browser Icons.
    System 1 for the App Icons.

    Choose colours that work with all these choices, and it will look modern and fresh

  116. Mugdho wrote on

    System 1 General Purpose Icons are great. Same for Singuarly focused. But the package is less understandable for the rest of the thing.

  117. Juan Albarran wrote on

    I think System 1 is the best option out of the two, at least it shows greater potential for development. The outline-based iconography of System 2 feels too generic and doesn’t remind me of Mozilla in any way, except for the Masterbrand Icon and the Browser Icon. System 1 shows depth and maturity, and is more reminiscent of the Mozilla brand, now modernized. My main feedback with System 1 is that it could have a simpler color palette. As its stands, it feels a bit messy. Some icons, like the ‘photo’ one, could also benefit from simplification, as the four dots in its current form feel unnecessary. The Masterbrand Icon of System 1 is very good. It is both perfectly abstract and also very clearly depicting a fox. The geometry of this language makes it look more thoughtful, mature, calculating and gives more room for variety. The icons from System 2 all have the exact same structure and patterns. It makes it slightly more consistent at the expense of being boring and generic. System 1 FTW!

  118. Sudomoose wrote on

    I really like everything about system 1, not a huge fan of really anything about system 2. Props to the design team for their work on both. I think system 1 will also work better on many different backgrounds.

  119. Asael wrote on

    I like the idea of using System 1 for the Masterbrand and System 2 for everything else.

  120. Diego Moya wrote on

    Well, I for one applaud the initiative. Having a unified identity that can be expanded to a new product family is commendable, and I won’t be the one to speak ill of whatever sacrifices are needed to achieve that goal.

    That said, as a lover of what Mozilla represents for Libre software and an open web, and being a user of the browser since when it was still branded as a bird rising from its ashes, I’m not at all convinced with either of the proposals here; I can see where they’re coming from, but both still need some work to become something I’d dare to call “Firefox”. (There’s no need to say, what follows is just my own personal impressions and feelings with no claims to ojectivity).

    The worse offender in that respect is the “General purpose browser icon”. I just loved how the previous “Quantum Browser” redesign managed to simplify the old icon while fully maintaining it recognizable; for that reason, it’s a real shame that such effort will be lost, in both of these new proposals.

    From day 1, Firefox has always been a recognizable Giant Red-Orange Fox groping over the Planet. You remove the blue planet as in System 2, and it becomes a bland circle, indistinguishable from every other shiny round logo in any other app or company. You change the head’s shape and remove the arm as in System 1, and it’s not the same fox hugging the planet anymore, becoming no longer our beloved Firefox identity. Please, PLEASE maintain the core icon as close as possible to the current version and don’t remove any element from it (System 2 would be much more recognizable here as “the same icon” than System 1, were it not for the lack of planet).

    Now, to answer your other concerns:
    -Maybe you could keep the planet-less icon just for the masterbrand, and retain the blue planet for the browser? Pretty please?

    -The masterbrand icon in System 1 does feel like belonging to the Firefox brand. Kudos for this highly recognizable fox head facing the front; it’s a welcome expansion to the iconography. The masterbrand in System 2 could be any company (*cough* Ubisoft?…*cough*), only resembling Firefox when placed alongside the generic browser icons.

    -System 1 is much more cohesive as being “the same identity” for all its icons. In System 2, the hollow “apps” and “special browsers” icons don’t look at all the same as the sturdy “masterbrand” and “generic browser” icons. The cold color palette in “new apps and services” in System 2 doesn’t even blend in with the previous warm icons, they look disjoint.

    -The warm palete in 1 is more homogeneous, though a bit boring (it might benefit from mixing warm oranges and cold greens in the same icon for the “apps and services”, just like the “specific browsers” combine successfully the oranges and blues).

    – The “new apps and services” in System 2 are completely unrememberable to me; I couldn’t be able to recognize them a second time. Those in System 1 are way more distinctive and recognizable, and I could even try to guess what service they provide from their shapes (tabs, images, security, some kind of flow). system 2 just look like random geometric shapes (except for the “image” icon, which is clearer in System 2 than in 1). System 1 volumetric polygons looks easier to expand into new recognizable shapes than System 2 flat curved lines.

    – As for the icons representing “modernity”, “techology” or “people over profit”… I’ve never believed on iconography conveying values on their own, no matter how much the marketing people insist; that’s what the copywriting is for. What matters here is this subjective feeling of “is this still Firefox”? If you nail that, the values will come attached to the already established brand recognition over all this years.

    Keep the good work! Hope to keep myself up to date with how this initiative evolves.

  121. Nathan Billington wrote on

    System 1, all the way. Animals are a very successful way to brand things (think of Frontier’s wildly successful talking animals campaigns), so you want to maximize that– make the fox easier to identify, more recognizable.

    For the master icon (again, system 1), tweak this design so it’s clearly a fox– its maybe a bit too abstract for the general consumer– and that’s the mission of firefox, to empower and protect the general consumer.

    For the general-purpose browser icons, I think these are a huge improvement over the current firefox icon, simply because the Fox’s face is in profile, making it easier to identify. I’d suggest working with the colors/gradients around the face so that the face is nice and easy to read– the human brain loves faces, and abhors not being able to see them clearly.

    Also with your color choices keep the color disabled or color impaired in mind– the logos should be able to reduce down to black and white in such a way that the logos aren’t dependent on color.

    Again, love system 1. Go with a Fox’s face over abstract fire. Faces are more personable; fire can get lost in ambiguity.

  122. Nico Burns wrote on

    I’m a big fan of system 1.

    It seems more unique. Also, softer and more human that goes well with Mozilla (and Firefox) values.

    I also *much* prefer the masterbrand logo in system one. It’s recognisably a fox, whereas the other one is rather nondescript.

  123. dolphinling wrote on

    I saw the first set of icons and thought “wow, that’s really good”. Then I saw the second set of icons and thought “wow, that’s really good too!”

    I’ve been a mozillian since 2002 and have used Firefox since Phoenix 0.1 (yes, really). The Firefox icon has a tremendous amount of personal meaning to me.

    This post gives me confidence that as it continues to evolve, it’s in good hands.

  124. J.F. McCullers wrote on

    I did not really like the idea of a family of “visually cohesive” icons when i began reading this post. It just didn’t seem like the something that was necessary. In the two examples that come to mind (Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite) the visually cohesive icon families do create a strong brand identify, but they also seem to submerge the individual characteristics of each app or service. I was worried that this family of icons approach would become tiresome, and might lock designers into a look that would be hard to change in the future.

    All that aside, however, I changed my mind after look at the two concepts presented here. When seeing them all at once, it is clear that there is an underlying logic and order to how the designs are similar and how they are different. After seeing this, now I’m surprised to find myself thinking this approach might actually help differentiate the products and services.

    I strongly prefer System 2 over System 1.

    There are two weakness to System 1 that I think are hard to overcomes. The first is the emphasis on the fox image, which was always a metaphor. The masterbrand icon for System is a straight-up fox, and the fox isn’t doing anything at all. It isn’t being swift, or sly, or clever, or any other desirable things for which foxes enjoy such a good reputation. It’s just a fox, and it makes me weary. Even worse, all of the other icons on this system seem bloated, and quite difficult to identify as anything at all, and even more difficult to tell apart. Given that these will often be used on small mobile screens, this problem seems fatal.

    System 2 is much better. The emphasis is on the swirl, which connotes energy and motion and getting things done. It still seems fresh, and even small portions of the swirl will still be brand-identifiable. Even better, the icons are quite easy to differentiate and tell apart. I’m not too crazy about the broken lines in each icon, since the breaks appear to be purely decorative and convey no information. I worry that these breaks will date the icons quickly as we tire of the broken effect. I do like how easy they are to identify even in small resolutions, and so they’re my strong preference so far.

  125. adr wrote on

    System 2 is preferable because it is easier to distinguish from each other. At the end of the day, I’m going to stick all of my applications from Mozilla in a folder named Mozilla except for the one-maybe-two apps I use frequently. System 1 is more color thematic and that’s probably the worst quality to have when distinguishing icons; both MS Office and Google Docs use a different color for each application for exactly this reason.

  126. onur wrote on

    System 2

  127. Josh Triplett wrote on

    Version 1 just doesn’t seem at all like Firefox; it seems like a different product or brand entirely. It doesn’t feel recognizable, and looking at it, I’d never have connected it to Firefox in any way. It also seems confusingly similar to the icon of Gitlab.

    Version 2 feels very much like an updated version of the Firefox identity. I can look at it and *immediately* think “that looks like Firefox” with no prompting; it’d be different, but recognizable.

  128. Andrew R Giroux wrote on

    Personally, I think that System 1 is more cohesive. While I love both design patterns, I think System 1 stands out and stands together more.

    The icons for the main for the main browser in each system look like Firefox, but I think System 1 as a whole reminds me more of how I view Firefox currently.

    As for future products, I think both design patterns allow for expansion, but while I like System 1 better, I think System 2 will be simpler and potentially more versatile for expansion and new icons. However, I think System 1 is bolder and stronger in it’s uniqueness to the brand.

    While I think the color choices in both are good, I think System 1 presents a warmth that more strongly presents your brand goal of displaying people over profit.

  129. me wrote on


  130. Margeaux wrote on

    System 1 is fire AF
    System 2 feels sitcker-ish and meh

  131. rawados wrote on

    System 1

  132. Megumin Satou wrote on

    Regardless of master-brand choice, I gotta admit that I really dig the merchandising options already! That statue of David mockup looks quite spiffy.

  133. dre g wrote on

    I like to see the progress here! It feels like the right time to refine the brand identity further.

    My thoughts:

    The browser icons for System 1 maintain the current Firefox identity, and the soft rounded edges do connote the general sense of “fun” of the original Firefox logos. But while the new non-browser icons are “fun,” I feel like all the sharp, >120-degree corners have been shaved off to make it kid-friendly. System 2 still feels like Firefox to me: the colors and shapes still maintain a sense of identity, and carry forward the sharp corners and charm; it maintains more readily identifiable relationships with the existing work. Smart, mature, and less tethered to a specific trendy motif.

    Both System 1 and System 2 are mostly cohesive; again, the browser icons seem like they stand out from the rest. System 1 has a lot stronger color synergy. While the masterbrand in System 2 carries over the Firefox legacy, the “ribbons” identified in System 2’s style don’t have as strong a relationship to the browser icons.

    I can see how both System 1 and System 2 will expand; they will each run into their own difficulties as the product lines expand.

    Both systems reinforce the ideas of speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation — I appreciate the bold color choices.

    System 2 feels like it prioritizes people over profit; the lines are fun with balanced counterforms, maximizing legibility at a wider range of sizes. I feel that System 1, though, sacrifices personal identity for brand cohesion at a cost of making it harder to see what each shape represents, particularly with the new apps/services icons.

    Thanks for sharing your progress so far!

  134. Atom Ridge wrote on

    I think the System 1 icons look better across the board, since most of them retain the orange that people associate with Firefox. The S1 Masterbrand logo does look an awful lot like the GitLab logo, but the S2 one looks a bit too similar to the browser icons, so IMO, I think S1 would be a better choice.

  135. Joshua N wrote on

    I like system 2 better. cleaner

  136. Guilherme wrote on

    I hate everything about both of these new icons. I love the Firefox icons as they are right now.

  137. Michelle Cohrene Funk wrote on

    It think system 2’s fiery tale swoosh is more evocative of FireFox.
    And system 1’s fox head is really hard to differentiate from the GitLab fox.
    The cleaner lines of the rest of the icon set are nice vs the muddled/blocky aspect of system 1, but lack overall brand cohesion

  138. Aldo wrote on

    i pefere the system logo 2, ’cause it looks like more modern.

  139. Andre Cunha Paiva wrote on

    System 2

  140. Aaron B. wrote on

    System 2 definitely looks better in my opinion. But I would use the masterbrand logo from System 1 and then all the other System 2 icons.

  141. Pablo wrote on

    I love the system 2 better, it keeps the firefox sign more simple and recognizable. However, in the general purpouse category, I think version 1 does better

  142. Tom wrote on

    System 2

  143. Foxi wrote on

    System 1 is ICONIC! Can I get that shirt in XL?

  144. Taylor wrote on

    I like both systems, but system 1’s master icon looks too similar to Gitlab’s. That could be a source of confusion.

  145. Patrick Kinne wrote on

    System 2 100%. System 1 is way too close to Gitlab.

  146. WellBattle6 wrote on

    System 1 feels more cohesive. It seems to be more recognizable that they come from the same brand, while system 2 risks icon confusion with other companies apps. I’ll give you a warning about possible brand confusion when using the Foxhead logo with Gitlab’s Tanuki logo.
    The Verge article also has lots of comments on your designs. I was directed to this blog from there.

  147. WellBattle6 wrote on

    Also, there appears to be a severe length in time between comment actually being posted from submission.

  148. Carlos Fangmeier wrote on

    Hi, I think the masterbrand icon 1 look to similar to the one of gitlab and smartcat.

  149. Dmitry Kudriavtsev wrote on

    I really like System 1’s icons for the single focused browser icons, but I prefer the System 2 masterbrand. I think System 2’s Firefox Quantum icon would be better with the blue sphere/circle in the background (similar to the current icon)

  150. Jody Bruchon wrote on

    Go back to the styles from Netscape and Firebird and maybe even early Firefox. Please stop with all this flat-inspired new stuff. Some things never needed to be changed. I’ve attached a suggestion that is “Ars Technica approved:”

  151. Val Blais wrote on

    System 2 seems more distinct for my aging eyes.

  152. Ken Barbalace wrote on

    I like system one better than system two as it is more visually appealing to my eye and the icons seem more consistent to me across the entire system.

  153. Yusuf Mohamud wrote on

    I really like the design of system 1. The way the colours blend together and the more distinctive styling makes it very aesthetically-pleasing to me. System 2 is nice but it reminds me too much of a sticker.

  154. Jorge wrote on

    I like the fox master icon and the second set of general purpose browser icons.

  155. Johannes wrote on

    I prefer system 2, as the master icon is way more “foxy” andere resembles more Thema current logo than the Others one, that features the foxes head.

    Next, I like the three main browser Icons of system 2. Their shape is more appealing to me.

    However, for the remaining logos I prefer system 1.

    Best, Johannes

  156. Alan wrote on

    System 1 looks so much better!

  157. Arthur Fakhreddine wrote on

    I prefer the first system for 2 reasons

    The icons look much more movers modern

    It stick week with what people think of Firefox, burning orange with shades of blue

    Also I believe that they will be easier to use to create meaning because they are not outline based, the other ones have very thick outlines so it will be complicated to create different shapes.

    I also just find them more beautiful but that’s just my opinion.

  158. Jun You Tan wrote on

    I think the swoosh will forever have a place in my heart and it looks more dynamic and special, with the strong sense of motion. However, that dynamism is lost in the new icons in system 2 with its thinner lines and vastly different shapes that no longer reference the fox. It’s hard to keep the swoosh in new icons for separate services. But overall, I’m more interested in system 2.

  159. Arthur Fakhreddine wrote on

    Also for your animations, if you use this first icon set, then you could use panels that fade and slide into position and change in gradient based on position. I think this is more or less un heard of, and I think will look pretty cool.

  160. Steve Baumann wrote on

    The Masterbrand icons are both interesting in their own way. However, they both seems to loose a little something of the whole. Icon 1 is all fox with no fire. Icon 2 is all fire with no fox. The very first sub icon of either set seems to convey “Firefox” better than either of the two Masters. If you are concerned about having icons for future products, it seems like it would be quite easy to wrap our friendly, flaming fox around a pencil or paint brush (for a creative app), have it holding a camera (for a photo related app), or you could easily attach the flaming bushy tail to any number of objects to convey that the particular app/tool is a Firefox (related) product. In System 1, only the colors seem somewhat related to any Firefox branding, and in System 2, nothing about those icons says “Firefox” to me, in any way, shape or form. They are nice, attractive, well designed icons, to be sure; just a total non-starter in evoking anything in my imagination that would even remotely make me think of my favorite fox.

  161. Bill B wrote on

    I think System 1 is more fresh, state of the art, and fun. At this stage though, the Masterbrand icon for System 2 feels more finalized, or mastered. In music production blending all the instruments and levels so that it sounds like one unit is the mastering process, and System 2’s main logo has that fully-realized effect. All the shapes and colors are blended well enough so that it feels like a single image and logo, whereas System 1 still has the feeling of being separate shapes that haven’t been fully integrated into one logo.

    Some ideas to help mix logo 1 a bit could be to use a slight glassy effect you see in Apples OS, where an overlaying menu you swipe overtop the existing screen blurs and glasses out the screen behind the menu. Either applying that effect to the diamond fox head, or increasing the transparency of the diamond so that the contrast between diamond and ears isn’t so strong could potentially help. Overall, I do prefer the fox head logo and would rather have it on my phone and computer screen.

    Pros for System 1
    It’s playful and fun, and makes me feel creative and like tinkering and exploring the interface.
    I get the sense of people being the priority with this set.

    Cons for System 1
    I wonder if in their simplicity they aren’t communicating a detailed enough icon. The rocket, lock, and photo frame are easy enough to make out, but the others almost seem more like buttons. The learning curve (however small it may be) to learning what icons match to what systems might be slightly higher for System 1. I love this system though, it’s awesome.

    Pros for System 2
    A more clear and direct set of logos, easy to interpret due to more detail. The general purpose fox icons are equally clean and fresh for both systems IMO.

    Cons for System 2
    For whatever reason, the first thing that comes to mind when looking at the new apps and services is mid-2000’s Hp printer design. There’s probably no concrete correlation, but yeah this feels like companion icons to hardware where design is second instead of leading-edge design for a software suite. This set of logos has a slightly dated feel to me, and maybe it’s the more classically corporate look that’s signaling that effect.

    I think both systems can be stretched for new products in the future. A VR icon for when browsers and social media have integrated a sort of social virtual reality could be a good exercise. A mail icon could be done easily enough on both systems as a creative exercise as well.

  162. Broc Seib wrote on

    The master icon from system 1 is superior to system 2. It’s simple and brilliant. However it does depart from what people are used to seeing. But I see that as an opportunity to attract new users, and convey a new product meaning with a strong brand change. Shake it up a bit and get noticed.

    As for the rest of the icons, system 2 seems to communicate their purpose better than system 1. System 2 was smarter about when to use monotone vs multi color, given the context where those icons will be used. System 1 are a little more abstract or a bit muddled in conveying their purpose.

    I am not an expert. That’s just my reaction upon seeing them.

    Nice work done on all icons by their respective authors.

  163. Zebulon McCorkle wrote on

    First impression is that the system 1 masterbrand icon looks very similar to the GitLab logo, that might need to be changed.

  164. Luke Petschauer wrote on

    In general I prefer System 1, with the important exception of its “Firefox Master Brand” icon, which
    looks almost identical to GitLab’s icon and abandons FF’s signature circle icon/branding. I sincerely hope you will not use it! To me, this is hugely important – don’t abandon the FF circle, especially for something so derivative!

    System 1’s “General Purpose Browser Icons” are much better than those in System 2 – to me, an important part of FF’s ethos is that it is a browser for the _world_-wide web. System 2’s icons lack the “earth” circle in the icon, leaving the red panda grasping at thin air–not the sort of imagery that I think should represent FF. Note that this problem is not evident in System 2’s Master Brand icon, where the tail comes around to almost complete the circle.

    System 1’s “Singularly Focused Browser Icons” and System 2’s “Icons for new apps & services” are both more visually appealing than the alternatives, in which the orange and red is overpowering.

    Thank you for sharing your concepts. In the end I prefer a hybrid of the two, but would put maintaining the continuity of the Masterbrand Icon before everything else.

  165. Claudio wrote on

    System 2>

  166. Adam wrote on

    I quite like the system 2 icons as they’re close to the existing Firefox icons that we know and love, while still being modern and fresh-looking.

  167. A. Wilcox wrote on

    System 2 is so much more internally consistent. I don’t like System 1’s design nor colours.

    That said, I feel like some of the shapes of the “new apps and services” from System 1 might work better than the shapes of the System 2 icons for easy recognition.

    I definitely prefer System 2 though.

  168. Thompson wrote on

    No doubt, both are visually interesting, but system set 1 pushes the limits and presents a new group of sleak, not obvious iconography, yet maintaining brand consistency. Amazing! Can’t wait to see it in production!

  169. Keegan wrote on

    The new icons look awesome! I’d probably go with system 2. It’s hard to miss the similarities between the system 1 masterbrand icon and GitLab’s logo

  170. Kevin wrote on

    System 2!

  171. Daniel Forssten wrote on

    Neither system for the “Singularity focused browser icons” are telling me that they are related to Firefox — they could be the logo of any hip startup or sleek mobile app. The same goes for the “Icons for new apps & services” and the Mozilla brand as a whole.

    For me, animals wrapping around an item are recognizably Mozilla products. If you were to branch out the Firefox brand, I would like distinctive elements of the Firefox logo to always be kept, such as the fox’ head and/or thick flames — the color scheme alone is not enough.

  172. franklinovitch wrote on

    I generally prefer the system 1, the colours are more consistent.

    However, its “masterbrand icon” looks A LOT like the one from GitLab.

    Feels really weird.

  173. Sam wrote on

    System 2 is the winner so far. Seems like a great evolution of the current system, and that masterbrand icon retains the recognition of the existing Firefox icon even without the fox head.

    The shading is spot on – it’s beautiful, vibrant and stands out in a sea of mediocre browser icons. System 1 feels less refined, and the more blocky use of colour feels less sophisticated. Looks more like a young startup rather than an established, trusted brand.

    I do, however, feel like the singularly-focused icons need a bit of work. The same icons in System 1 feel slightly more refined and recognisable.

    I also think that the masterbrand icon in System 1 isn’t right. It’s too techy, has lost a lot of personality. Could be for anything really.

  174. kobo wrote on

    overall, the system 1 icon looks better to me except for the browser icon which are ‘cleaner’ on the system 2

    the meaning o some of the icon elude me but tha may be because i don’t know the services. but the lock and email on system 1 are definitely clearer to me that the star and email of system 2

  175. Baratum wrote on

    I really like the system 2/bcus its look good in silluette,

    But it still need improvement

  176. Guillaume Bellemare wrote on

    Definitely system #1. More consistent trough out.

  177. Craig Cole wrote on

    System 2 and not even close. Sleek, clean and new. Love it!!!!

  178. Martin Spamer wrote on

    A triumph of style over substance, the purpose of each is entirely obscured.

  179. Min wrote on

    So… is System 1 intentionally a clone of the GitLab logo? Because it is. I’d seriously consider System 2 for that reason alone.

  180. Anand K wrote on

    I like the System 1 Masterbrand icon; it is highly distinctive.

    However I prefer the System 2 remainder icons.

    If you take S1Master and pair it with S2 browser icon, it visually looks appealing and is easy to say what the product is as well.

    “Oh, Firefox Browser, Firefox Developer Browser, Firefox Focus, etc.”

  181. Siva Swaminathan wrote on

    At an overarching level, I feel that the “fire” (being the emphasized syllable in Firefox) is a more suited center for the brand rather than “fox”. “Fire” also signifying innovation and advancement (almost always with positive connotations) while “fox” seems somewhat limiting from the perspective of future evolution and diversification. It would therefore be good to maintain the “fire” aspects of the branding rather than relegating that to the vaguely warm color scheme.

    The System 1 masterbrand logo reminds me of Gitlab (this will be the case for many techies) and will continue to be a source of confusion, going forward. Also, the singularly focused browser icon in System one looks a lot like the Google Picasa icon ported to this color theme. Coming to the color theme of purple+yellow+etc mishmash, it reminds me a lot of Ubuntu — System 1 icons for new apps/services could so easily be mistaken for Ubuntu branding.

    System 2 masterbrand seems to have more character specific to the Firefox (unlike generic abstracted shapes), and still leaves room for future brand evolution and diversification with the theme of “fire”. The pointy tails in the System 2 browser are most easily associated with speed, which is a great match for all the marketing around Firefox Quantum. That aspect would be good to reinforce, going forward.

    System 2 logos/icons also seem to carry the connotation of being “lean” (system 1 logos seem to connote full/fat, in contrast), but this is a very minor point.

    If sought, I’m happy to offer my feedback through the evolution of this work/process. Feel free to reach out via the email address I’ve provided.

  182. Foo wrote on

    – Why do you need a “masterbrand” ? Won’t having multiple logos for the same thing confuse people more than anything else ?
    – Have you heard of Gitlab ?
    – What’s wrong with the current logo ?

  183. Trouble D Foley wrote on

    And… Focus needs to be a completely different colour. There should be no confusion about which app I’m opening. So, no orange or blue, gimme a different colour.

  184. Roj wrote on

    System 1 please

  185. Benjamin Kerensa wrote on

    All of the designs look awful especially the System 1 which looks like a ripoff of the Gitlab branding.

  186. Greg wrote on

    System 2 for sure.

  187. Karman Miguel wrote on

    This is a tremendous waste of time and resources, and you should be ashamed.

  188. Trouble D Foley wrote on

    The system 1 master icon is far too aggressive and masculine. (Maybe even fascist). I have to look a bit closer. But my initial reaction is… No. No. No.

  189. Nabil wrote on

    Hi , I like most of the work done here but if have to choose by system for each system it would go like this :
    1- Master brand : i would choose system 1 as it has more character and would be instantly recognizable as a fox , system is too close to the browser icon and not close enough as without the fox head it looks like a group of circles with no purpose
    2-general purpose icons : i would also choose system one as i think the blue globe is essential to the Firefox browser brand and it adds contrast and omitting it would be a mistake
    3-Singularily focused browser icons : i would also go with with system 1 as it has more color and character and would be more recognizable.
    4-New Apps and services : I would like if system 1 had the colors of system 2 , as they are more vibrant and distinguishable , and the current color scheme of the system 1 icons look too similar to tell them a part.
    Good Luck.

  190. Matt Rasband wrote on

    The first set looks like GitLab, so in my non designer opinion that seems like a non-starter.

    The second one feels to lose the historic Firefox feel and would need a rebrand within a somewhat short window.

  191. Tyler Louton wrote on

    I personally like the system 1 icons better but I think that the overall firefox logo should be more similar to the browser logo as most people think of firefox as a browser and different logos could become confusing and damage the brand. I do really like the system 1 overall logo but believe that it should have more continuity. I think that the fox logo could look cool in different colorways too. Also that firefox t-shirt with the system 1 logo looks fire.

  192. Sam N wrote on

    System 1 for sure, love the masterbrand logo. System 2 has to much color variation

  193. Bryce Cindrich wrote on

    System 1 for sure.

  194. Bill wrote on

    I like version 2 better.

  195. Matthew Sinclair wrote on

    So i’m Really torn. I prefer system 2 for most things, however I VERY MUCH prefer the System 1 Masterbrand Icon – mostly for the swag possibilities. Also, it’s clearly a fox which is a must imo

  196. Fernando wrote on

    I think the current logo is perfect, but for everything else, system 1 is perfect.

  197. Alex wrote on

    System 2 is amazing !!!!!!!

  198. Lucas Vianna wrote on

    Definetely System 2. Although the apps and browser icons from system 1 are pretty cool, the fluidity of the sytem 2 designs is awesome. Even the gradient, which you might think got a little overused lately, seems new and fresh when added to those sleek curves.

    Elegant, smooth, edgy. The Masterbrand logo on system 2 is a flawless update on the classic, world-wide known, Firefox logo.

    GOD i hope System 2 makes the cut. Seriously.

  199. Joe De Patta wrote on

    Don’t care. I’ll get used to anything you come up with. I’d really like more security with my colorful logos.

  200. Diet_Soda_With_Lime wrote on

    These look horrible and bland. firefox already has an amazing an reconizble icon. i dont get the point of this rebrand. its both a waste of money and resources. stop making horrible decisions and put a real leader in charge.

  201. Mark wrote on

    Unless I’m missing info about integration, I think you’re making a mistake with both systems.

    I could go either way with the Masterbrand icons. What I reflexively do not like is the almost immediate falloff in comprehension with the lower-level icons.

    My suggestion would be to choose one of the Masterbrand icons based on community feedback and market testing, then the integrate all of the other icons into that Masterbrand. By which I literally mean superimposing the lower-level icons on the main, company wide rebranding.

    Fortunately, each of the Masterbrand icons presents space in which to do that, so you don’t have to start over. Without some kind of integration, however, I think you will be diluting the value of your new Masterbrand logo, regardless of which one you pick.

  202. higuita wrote on

    Firefox is the browser, do not try to glue other apps to it, even if already included, think in the in the seamonkey and why it was break up in several apps. If people start to see firefox as a bundle of apps, they will complain with bloat and slowdown, even if it is all html.
    Call it browser apps or maybe even better, addons (and allow removal/disable by the user), but they are still loaded via firefox. Have as few icons as possible

    Finally, Firefox icon, style should not be changed, trying to change it will seem again another attempt to “look like chrome” and its “simplified” look

  203. Telkeppe wrote on

    System 1 looks great.. with the exception of the masterbrand icon. It makes no sense to me in System 1. However all the other icons in system 1 are lovely.

    System 2… The icons are beautiful… But are horrible for branding and could easily be confused for other icons.

  204. Sean wrote on

    System 1’s Master logo is a bit too reminiscent of GitLab’s logo. The icons besides that both look good, though System 1 looks slightly better due to the icons being more solid and so easier to distinguish. Besides that, for typography it would be a good idea to stay consistent or at least related to the modern Mozilla typography.

  205. Vinícius wrote on

    I don’t think the “new apps” level of system 2 has visual hints enough to link then to the other levels. Looking at the whole system 2 all together, I can understand the connections, but I don’t believe that if one see one of the lowest level icon alone, he/she will connect it to the rest of the brand family.

    The icons of the system 1, on the other hand, have a consistent and distinctive image as a whole. Colors, lines, concept are obvious and strong enough. I don’t like the general purpose bowsers level of system 1, they could be more geometric to match the other icons of the system. I think the icons of that level in system 2 would work better in system 1 (with the proper adjustments, more sharp lines, less gradient).

  206. Pavale Dres wrote on

    I really dislike System 1’s mater brand icon. It doesn’t really symbolize anything other than current trends. System 2’s icon is closer to the idea of Firefox: empowering the web, and being fast and innovative.

    Although System 1’s Singularly-focused icons are much better and cleaner, the colorfulness of System 2’s icons for new apps and service is a must.

  207. Rendy wrote on

    I think, System 1 indicated no envolved for Firefox, because it have the same colors and design principle with the previous. So Maybe System 2 is the best for me

  208. Abrahim Ladha wrote on


    My colorblindness prevents me from seeing the difference between system 1 general purpose browser icons, the second and third ones which are probably for firefox developer and nightly i suppose. I like the system 1 designs better because of the bushy tails.

  209. DarckCrystale wrote on

    I really like the System 2 and it is at the same time close to your existing brand and different from other brands (system 1 looks like the GitLab brand identity and I find it very confusing).

  210. jim burge wrote on

    Leave the icons as they are. If not System 2 is best.

  211. Miguel wrote on

    I think that system 1 is a drastical change, and maybe that is what we need.

  212. sprocket wrote on

    The Firefox brand is not a collection of apps or an OS. It is the web browser. No one in userland wants to see it change, and changing it up will destroy the brand.

    If anything, what you guys are proposing should be filed under the Mozilla brand, not the Firefox brand.

    Most of the icons proposed are too similar to existing properties. Besides, they all have no meaning to me, besides the Firefox logo.

  213. Foobar wrote on

    All of this work looks like you are designing a brand of children’s toys. Is Mozilla a toy browser? Can adults count on it for professional work?

  214. Ian B wrote on

    System 1 icons all the way. Simple and clean, and the fox-ness is perfect.

  215. SKR Imaging wrote on

    I like system 2 better! Feels more streamlined and yet has the familiarity of Firefox globally identifiable.

  216. Roland wrote on

    Here are a few thoughts:
    Both systems represent a less trustworthy Mozilla; a Firefox browser logo which either drops the planet, or no longer hugs the planet really does not give a positive image.
    The featureless, fox face as masterbrand for system 1 also appears focused on itself. Firefox is about the user; not about Mozilla, so I think that such things should be taken into consideration.

    On the color scheme: Both systems feel too similar to Instagram to me, maybe consider going easier on that?

  217. Aragrev wrote on

    I do not like system 1.
    System 2 is better.

  218. mindoka wrote on

    i’ve been constant ff user from the version 1.

    system 2 looks SO much better.

    if it would look like system 1 then i would rather use edge and never use ff again even if you would offer money for people to do so; even if itd be large amounts of money.

  219. Matthias wrote on

    While the icons look pretty professional and modern, they lack of any emotions. They aren’t friendly nor cute, but look like any other app. To sad as I like the fox and other animals introduced by mozilla…

  220. Dieter wrote on

    I prefer 1 over 2. Although 2 is not bad either.

  221. raton-laveur wrote on

    “our branding needs to evolve.”
    No it doesn’t. It’s just following a flat design trend and is a waste of community’s time and effort.

    Putting this evolution as a choice is akin to pest or cholera, hoping that we’ll drink the Kool-Aid and just not realize that neither “System 1” or “System 2” is a useful evolution.

  222. Chris wrote on

    I recommend changing as little as possible. The firefox icon is easily recognizable and known to about half of mankind. Any massive change (most notably the “System 1 – Firefox Masterbrand Icon” will break this fact and reduce the number of people who can recognize the icon. Since being recognizable is the core feature of any icon, I suggest to not change the icon that much.
    I even find the “General-purpose browser icons” in both systems and the “System 2 – Firefox Masterbrand icon” quite different from current icons and thus not very easily recognizable.

    I’ve seen enough organizations change their icons too much and wasting recognition (is that even a word?) . See the “Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi” comparisons, for example:

  223. Dasdingausdemsupf wrote on

    First of all: good work!
    I like System1. For the first time the fox is looking at me, no turning its back on me! I think you should get rid of the back-turning fox clawing the earth completely. I’d prefer the “looking-at-me-fox” as general purpose browser icons…
    And don’t worry about the “not recognizable” argument. Theres only one program with a fox logo. So people see the fox and go like “ah! firefox!” *nod nod

  224. RK at FF wrote on

    Far prefer 2.

    Not a fan of the whole magenta/orange thing.

    I like the crispness of set 2. Also, it fits better with traditional firefox logos, and will be easier to recognize.

  225. Stanislav wrote on

    System 2

  226. Omar wrote on

    More simplicity would be appreciated. less details.

    Generic browser icons:
    I prefer system 2, but would like more purple on the middle fox just like system 1.

    Apps & services:
    Connect split lines in system 2.
    I prefer system 1 services, as they convey the brand more. I would like to see them using less distinctive colors, less lines, and more gradients.

  227. Jürgen wrote on

    Both of the systems are really nice artwork. System 1’s master logo resembled Gitlabs logo too much though. Also the first icon in System 1’s singularly-focused icons reminds me a little of googles picasa software (or a camera lens in general). Especially if I imagine a desaturated version of the logo it may be confused with the picasa logo.
    In conclusion, I favor System 2.

  228. Elvis Nobrega wrote on

    Both systems are awesome, but I think that the masterbrand of system 1 maybe something more round, or more foxy

  229. lara wrote on

    I’m an italian graphic designer and i think that System 1 is much more essential and caracteristic for the brand! it does’t lost his typical look like a fox, instead system 2 is too much complicated according to me. (sorry for my english)

  230. André Santos wrote on

    First of all, it’s nice that a company such as yours is trying to get feedback in such a vital process as this one.

    As for me, I’m not a professional designer (no course on it, and I don’t make money from design) I’m more an amateur designer (I do it for any project I’m envolved with, and I love design. So take my opinion as you will.

    Main logo: Logo 2 is the clear winner. Accepting logo 1 would be a huge mistake, as it is SO EQUAL to GitLab’s. Don’t.
    Above that, Firefox concerning only, the 2nd is much more recognizable as part of the family.

    The browser logos: neither option. The current ones are so much better it would be a shame parting with them. Also, they kind of fit within the 2nd option for design, if the colours are changed a bit. About the 1st option, it’s like you made a worse version of the actual design. The globe is smashed from above, and the fox looks worse. The browser, as the “Piece de resistance” should be mantained as the fox around the globe.

    About the logos, both are alright . But the 2nd option feels more as a long time result, than the first. However, this set is less refined than the first one and should have a better color scheme, adapting some of the blue from the quantum logo (that I think should be kept) and more orange. The icon should be enhanced, because they are difficult to read.

  231. Jimmy Lee wrote on

    Overall I have to say I prefer System 2.

    Feels there’s clearer cohesion between the masterbrand icons and the rest of the icon set.
    The silhouettes of the icons and negative space make it easier to distinguish between them too, especially at smaller sizes.

  232. Sham wrote on

    Great work!

    I love the main icon from System 1 – it’s much more fox-like and creates a strong identity.
    The main disadvantage is it really is near-identical to the GitLab logo, as others have mentioned.

    I like the System 2 icons, but they don’t feel very “firefox”-y.

    IMO the System 2 main icon, and the first System 1 singular focus browser icon, both look too much like generic circle icons. In particular the S1 s-f-browser icon looks too much like Chrome!

    Keep things foxy :-)

    1. Horacio wrote on

      +1 Vote for this.

  233. Necdet Ali wrote on

    TLDR: I liked System 2 more

    I want to explain my decision by answering the questions asked in the blog post.

    *Do these two systems still feel like Firefox?*
    I think that the “swoosh” master brand icon in System 2 is infinitely more recognizable than the boxy, generic fox head. Even without a fox in it, I can still see old Firefox logo in it.

    *How visually cohesive is each of them? Does each hold together?*
    Icons in System 1 is much more cohesive than of the other. They all share similar design elements: vibrant colors, clean lines and angles, etc. On the other hand, System 2 icons can be separated into two in terms of design. Master icon and browser icons differ from the wireframe look of the rest. However vibrant, neon colors with an off-white shadow looks really nice in my opinion.

    *Can the design logic of these systems stretch to embrace new products in the future?*

    I find both systems to be versatile and open to new designs and products in the future. BUT, the geometric shapes and limited color palette of System 1 may inhibit discernibility of different products.

    *Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for?*
    System 1 has a more mature tone to it. I’d associate it with reliability and wit. System 2 on the other hand, can be easily associated with speed and innovation due to its bold color choices and simple shapes. The “swoosh” icon reinforces the idea of speed, too.

    *Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?*
    I find this question to be a little abstract, and hard to answer. But if I had to give an answer, I’d say System 2 seems to fit the bill as it invoke friendliness and liveliness.

  234. Daniel wrote on

    Updating the system 1 general-purpose browser icons to have the ears and sticking out paw from system 2 would make it look a lot better in my opinion.

  235. Kselos wrote on

    SYSTEM 2 Icons – loks better and more futuristic.

  236. Katia wrote on

    System 1 :)

  237. User1 wrote on

    System 1 looks too much like Gitlab or even Google / Google Photos – being made of blocks of solid colors.
    I personally like System 2 better, looks more modern and fluent.

  238. Chiara wrote on

    The system 1 follows the trends and will expire quickly, I prefer system 2 without a doubt.

  239. toni-patroni wrote on

    The Firefox logo from group 1 just does not feel like Firefox at all…

    If it’s a ‘must choose’ I’d choose system 2, but honestly I do not like both of them and do not understand why changing at all….
    But in system 2 the Firefox core logo has at least a Firefox feeling, which lacks completely in the first group (system 1)…

    Just please do not change things just for the sake of changing, or because a new designer felt bored. The current Firefox Logo in my 61.0.1 Help window just looks great as is.

  240. Graph_team wrote on

    I prefer system 1.

  241. Celine wrote on

    completely agree with @Ian B :

    System 1 icons all the way. Simple and clean, and the fox-ness is perfect !

  242. Marine wrote on

    I love the system 1

  243. Kimberly Grey wrote on

    Favouring System 1 here. Despite the GitLab similarity, the masterbrand logo feels like It’d still be a much more recognisable mark than the flame/tail/swoosh/spiral combination.

    System 1 also feels like it will last the test of time better. Although the icons of System 2 look pretty good here, I don’t imagine they’d reproduce at smaller sizes well and is perhaps too dependent on the ‘twisting shapes’ theme as to be truly expandable or usable in all situations going forwards—especially, again, as those twists will lose definition as they get smaller.

    That said, the Firefox browser logos from System 2 do look better than in System 1, I think because of the removal of the globe in the middle. It introduces some negative space that gives the icon a clearer silhouette.

  244. Hani wrote on

    System 2 is way better.

  245. Gironce wrote on

    System 2 is simple and more readable, the associated icons are, in my opinion, more quickly identifiable than those of system 1 (and less greedy in ink!). I like the idea of keeping the fox’s tail even if the head design is beautiful.

  246. Lukas wrote on

    I dislike the fox head logo in system 1, everything else is fine.

  247. Pascal wrote on

    System 1 looks too much like Gitlab’s CI – therefore I prefer System 2

  248. Yandrapalli wrote on

    The designs are really good. There are icons that I like in system 1 and 2 and icons I don’t like in either of them. I propose a system 3 where you mix both 1 & 2 icons.

  249. Sviatoslav wrote on

    System 2 better for me

  250. Fabiani wrote on

    I prefer system 1 ;)

  251. Adriano wrote on

    System 2

  252. maurizio wrote on

    System 1 :D

  253. Ylan wrote on

    I prefer icons of System 2, better design than system 1.

  254. Fabiani wrote on

    It’s a great thing that you ask the community. I prefer system 1 ;)

  255. Nix Nutz wrote on

    Was für ein Unfug. Wer keine Probleme hat, der macht sich welche. Was 2002 gut genug war, ist es auch heute noch.

  256. Martin Ligabue wrote on

    I love both styles, they’re fresh and clean. Maybe Design 2 is better, but idk, they have both good ideas

  257. Wuschel wrote on

    The design 2 is favorable in my opinion. It retains the old look more than system 1 and doesn’t turn things upside down completely.

  258. Xaver wrote on

    I Like – System 1: modernity, consistency, colors :)

  259. Santi wrote on

    Oh boy, is that system 1 master brand icon sexy!

    In the other hand, I feel like system 2 in overall meets all the expectations:
    Feels like Firefox, all of the icons have that twirling and gradient that reminds me of the brand.

  260. Maffi wrote on

    I do like the System 1 design,
    the contrasts are nice and help identifying the icon, no matter the background the icon is put on.
    It feels to me that the system 2 gets lost on brighter or more colorful backgrounds.
    The design of the foxes head/face also works perfectly – as its in the gradients of a flame/fire — yellow on the bottom and darker to the top. Fire Fox
    System2 looks too much like its tail – its about the whole, not just the behind (uh oh furries inbound)

    so yes, my pick, System 1

  261. Nix Nutz wrote on

    Was für ein Unfug. Wer keine Probleme hat, der macht sich welche. Was 2002 gut genug war, das ist es auch heute.

    1. Stevo wrote on

      Danke! Sehe ich 100% genauso!

  262. Gerbrich wrote on

    I’d prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2

  263. Shreevari SP wrote on

    I feel that neither of these designs reflects Firefox’s purpose and look too mainstream and common.
    Please come up with more designs.

  264. Lee wrote on

    System 1

  265. Martin wrote on

    I strongly oppose both Masterbrand icons – the first one looks like a fox and the second one looks like a fireball, but neither says “Firefox”.

    The icons in System 2 are overall more easily recognisable to me that those in System 1. That said, I have no idea what half the “icons for new apps & services” mean, which is the whole point of having icons in the first place. I would suggest going for something perhaps less stylish, but more useful.

  266. Kevin wrote on

    There is a very big problem with both masterbrand icons. Each of them only represent half of “Firefox”. No. 1 only represents the Fox, while no. 2 only the Fire. So, basically it’s split up. And I don’t understand it.

  267. Yves wrote on

    Change the icon considerably and people will not recognise it anymore. Remove the orange colour and people are lost, switching to Chrome because that’s something they recognise. Firefox with an all-new icon will be like any new startup browser, with no reputation at all.

    Don’t change anything, it’s good like it is. The slight quantum icon redesign was okay, simplifying things but keeping it well recognisable.

  268. Andrew wrote on

    System 2

  269. Nils wrote on

    I like system 1 better. It´s more modern.

  270. Edwin Koster wrote on

    I prefer System 2, especially the Masterbrand and General purpose browser icons. The rest of the icons look a bit out-of-sync with the Masterbrand icon. They don’t look like they’re part of the Firefox brand. But still better than System 1 though…

  271. Jesse K wrote on

    I like system 2 very very much, especially the Firefox icon! This icon is an evolution of the old logo.

    Maybe you can add more difference in line-width to the other application and service icons to make this collection more consistent with the Firefox icon.

    I think the Firefox icon must be leading in the choice.

  272. Sorin wrote on

    So the tail of the fox in System 1 is a bit too much. I’d love to see System 1 icons for Firefox with the tail from System 2 icons.

  273. KOFFI Bertin wrote on

    Pour le renouveau j’opte pour le System 2 Singularly-focuded browser icons.

  274. Peter O’Shaughnessy wrote on

    I think System 1 is stronger and looks more cohesive. It’s just unfortunate that – as others have pointed out – the System 1 Masterbrand logo looks very similar to Gitlab’s logo. I think if you can find a way to differentiate it from that, then you get a thumbs up from me!

  275. Maurício Fedatto wrote on

    I loved them both, awesome design! Although, I found the System 2 icons more pleasant, but the the master icon I prefer is the System 1 Master Icon.

  276. faxus wrote on

    Without any doubt the System 2.
    It is more recognizable, more elegant and modern

  277. Marian wrote on

    SYSTEM 1 !!!

  278. Florian wrote on

    I first thought the first proposal was the right one, because of its better cohesion (the icons for new apps & services seem more to belong to the family) while the option 2 has no “together spirit” to my mind…
    But at the second sight, the second proposal fits more with the innovative, technological face you want to show. And I prefer much more prefer the principle of the « rolling strips », more original and I think easier to recognize in the future 👌
    Nice work anyway 😊

  279. ojt wrote on

    As noted by some above, the System 1 carries too much resemblance to other brands out there. I even got the idea that they kind of look a bit Google-ish, which I think is not a good thing at all for Firefox.

    With that said, I do prefer the System 2 as a starting point, but I would evolve the “other icons” (single purpose browser icons, and new apps & services icons) more towards the System 1. So wider strokes, fully filled forms etc, but with the style and color scheme of the System 2.

    All in all System 2 looks more Firefox, of course also because it is less of a drastic take-off. Both ways are fine of course but I personally would take an evolutionary path instead of a revolutionary one. Firefox is a very well known and (imho) respected brand. Yes, it needs modernization but small evolutionary steps are just fine for doing that.

    Hope this helps or resonates with someone.


  280. Lewis Westwood-Flood wrote on

    I much prefer System 1’s browser logos – new while also being clearly “Firefox”. However, the master system logo is much too close to GitLab, which is an issue in terms of recognition.

    On that note, System 2 has much better looking general designs for new products, so I am pretty torn. I think a redesign incorporating both would serve best.

  281. Jack King wrote on

    System 2 of course!

  282. Linkl wrote on

    System 1 forever

  283. Joannie wrote on

    System 2

  284. Mateusz Kaźmierczak wrote on

    I prefer system 1. Those icons are solid – that makes me feel they stand for some secure and reliable software. However, there are two things I don’t like in it:

    1. The masterbrand icon in system 1 does not resemble any brand to me. I can see it’s a fox but I wouldn’t know that it’s Firefox if I weren’t told.

    2. The middle top icon for new apps: at first glance on system 1, I didn’t realized it is a picture. This icon is much comprehensible for me in system 2.

  285. Samuel wrote on

    I do not like the System 1 Masterclass icons as it looks pretty similiar to the Gitlab logo. System 2 Masterclass looks fine!

    Browser icons -> System 1, it just feels right having a blue globe in the background.

    All other icons -> System 2, better look & feel

    TL:DR Everything System 2, except the Browser Icons!

  286. Ro wrote on

    They’re both rubbish.

    The whole style (palate and shape style) is just meh. It’s completely devoid of character.

    In both systems the fox in the firefox logo fox is looking away from the earth. It looks possessive or daft.
    The current firefox logo fox looks more like it’s exploring.
    Broadly I think they fail your criteria.

    The best part of the firefox logo (although less so in the the current version) is the bushy flame tail. (
    Why not frame a concept around that?

    I would like to see a logo and brand that conveys nimbleness, playfulness, beauty, and a bit of magic/wonder. You’re not google.

  287. Linux User wrote on

    The first system is better. But I like the Firefox Quantum icon.

  288. Francesco wrote on

    System 1 is great!

  289. HimbeersaftLP wrote on

    I’d say system 1, but with a masterbrand icon more similar to system 2.
    System 1 has a better style and colour consistency and looks more modern (imo).
    System 2’s app & service icons look very generic while those from system 1 fit in with the rest of that system.
    The system 1 general-purpose browser icon is really awesome, combining the look of the previous FF icon with the theme of system 1.

    I’d go for system 1.

  290. Vlad wrote on

    I like system 1. Because I love flat design.

  291. Z wrote on

    I prefer System 2.

  292. Doshia wrote on

    From a design aspect, I prefer System 1. It holds together and immediately saw the fox (I’m assuming you’ll use the word mark “Firefox” for awhile
    for those who don’t), but…c’mon guys, almost a direct lift of Gitlab? That’s a non-starter, so it’s off the table.

    The second one is okay, but the icons a bit generic.

    At a more fundamental level, I wonder if you’re over complicating things by creating so many icons and levels. It seems simplicity and an uncomplicated approach is what Firefox is about.

  293. Firefox84 wrote on

    System 1

  294. Chris wrote on

    1st system looks more minimalistic and complex. Second one has too much free space.
    The problem is, that none of those systems could be adapted to Windows 10 square tiles, or Android adaptive icons. White icon background on a screenshot looked unfinished

  295. Steed wrote on

    I prefer system 2 please.

  296. Djuzpix wrote on

    System 1 is perfect ! Congrats to the designer(s) for this great job.
    I love the main logo. The fox has a stronger identity than “just another round logo of a web bro”.
    System 2 is very nice too but colors are colder and complex curves don’t tell me “you can trust me, I am stable, easy and efficient” and that’s what I want to ear when I choose my browser. System 1 is better on this point that’s all.

  297. mozilla_user_for_years wrote on

    The masterbrands need to be redesigned. I personally love the firefox nightly logo. More modern in regards to colors, still unique and recognizable.

    As a personal taste, I really prefer icons which avoid being to white’ish.

    Please try to design different masterbrands somehow. I vote for the firefox webbrowser logo in SYSTEM 1 (middle one) ;-).

  298. Thommie Rother wrote on

    I think I would prefer something like System 2, for two reasons: it reminds to the older symbols, but only for a little bit. Second, it is pretty “iconic” and feels more “organic” (maybe because of its “roundness”). I believe it would also be easier to make it 3-dimensional if this is requested sometimes. I personally would continue with the development of system 2

  299. Johannes wrote on

    Another icon change will lead to countless people asking “where has my internet gone”. Stop messing around with cosmetic crap like that! How often did the most successful brands of the world change their logos? I hope the answer will make Mozilla rethink this.

  300. Stefan wrote on

    I am not yet sure if I like the new artwork or not. But the most confusing fact: I am missing the new example icons for one of your most important products, Thunderbird.

    1. Olivier wrote on

  301. Sebastian wrote on

    System 1 Master brand definitely looks like GitLab. But it is overall fitting better together than system 2. What about combining the master brand (or all general purpose logos) from system 2 with the other logos of system 1?

  302. Audrine wrote on

    System 1

  303. Vincent W. wrote on

    System 2 – Firefox Masterbrand | because 1. looks like github and 2. I dont want to totaly miss my foxtail

    System 2 – General-purpose browser icons because they dont look to overloaded and have a “freshness” that I like maybe try to hold the color sheme and give it a background like in sys1

    System 2 – Singulary-focused browser icons looks futuristic and nice but I miss the colour sheme of system1… I dont like it in this orange-yellow only sheme…

    system2 – icons for new apps & services perfect.. just perfect

    Very well done but dont cut away your roots, I miss my earth-fox-chan.

  304. Noragiz wrote on

    I realy love system 1 logo this is a new gen of Firefox

  305. ak wrote on

    Both looks nice. Make all system icon available so, People like they can choose their favorites. Thank you

  306. Alan wrote on

    Love both, but 2nd is better!

  307. Adetunji Paul wrote on

    I would say System 2 seems overall more cohesive, however I do think the style is a bit dated.

    I prefer the icons of System 1, however the master fox mark does not look very Mozilla.

    Great work all around, I’m looking forward to how things turn out.

  308. Alexandros Manolis wrote on

    I really do believe that new icons for all your products would be a nice change, although I’m not sure why would this be something else rather than a simple redesign. Despite that, I prefer the Icons of System 1 better because they represent the Firefox logo a little bit better. The fox and the blue sphere, whereas the system 2 icon feels somewhat empty, and has not a significant change from the current one. Now for the “New apps and services icons” I am not strongly fond of either of them. The System 1 icons have a nice design, but I don’t like the fact that the icons are pure orange. And the System 2 icons seem “big” and abstractly designed. I suggest that there should be a redesign for the System Icons, because the icons seem random and abstract, where a simple user couldn’t possibly understand which service is which. Or it wouldn’t be memorable. The icons need to represent what the app is about, now matter the difficulty, and no matter the design. At least that is my opinion as a simple user.

  309. Yevhen wrote on

    System 1 is much better

  310. _xlf wrote on


    Mozilla claims to be the tech company that cares, and you wrote the logos should represent that. So who/what **can** care? Can some abstract geometric shapes? I don’t think so. Can a fox? Probably. Can a fox hugging a globe? Definitely.

    Looking at E-Mail: There’s that self-folding envelope with red outlines, appearing out of nowhere (GMail). Then there’s that door opening in the void, just enough to let an envelope slide through. Who brought it there? No one knows (Outlook).
    Or I could have my envelope brought to me by a bird (Thunderbird). That’s someone I can be friends with, someone I can trust.

    Yes, abstract geometric shapes are “modern”. But they aren’t friends, can’t be. They don’t have feelings. Animals do. And they can be friends, can care. They can express that by hugging.

    That’s what I like about the current Firefox and Thunderbird logos. Thus, for me, the animals hugging things are more important as common element than anything else. Actually, look at these two: They don’t share a color scheme, and their graphic style is quite different, as the details in Thunderbird (and old Firefox) are now replaced by gradients in Firefox. But they still look like they belong to each other, as they are the only animals curled up to a circle, hugging things (and in my case, even the only animals).

    However, I don’t like the fox head only masterbrand icon, as the frontal perspective looks somewhat aggressive. The fox head is probably a good choice, as for a product family, it would be a hard choice what to hug, but I’d prefer the head from one of the General-Purpose browser icons.

    For the special-purpose browsers, I’d expect some variant of fox to be present, like wearing a VR-headset, or hugging something related to their special purpose.

    Also, for the “new apps”: If you want them to be part of “Firefox”, then there should be a (Fire-)fox. However, I don’t see (yet) why they should be closer to Firefox than to Thunderbird, if you want them (as would seem more logical to me) to be part of the Firefox-Thunderbird product family, then I’d like to see more animals, with the common theme of being curled up, hugging something, like the Fox is hugging the globe, and like the bird is hugging the envelope.

    If the whole animals take to much space, keep at least that fluffy tail or something.

    some remarks to individual logos and my own taste:

    General-purpose browser (Standard edition):
    I’d be happy with both, but prefer the first:
    – both heads are great, I prefer the first nose, but the second looks more awake and curious
    – the first tail is wayy more fluffy, the second looks kind of artificial
    – in the second version, the globe is missing, being used to the firefox-with-globe, this is quite distracting, but would be great for a 404-not found page.
    – however, I prefer the 2nd color scheme, as neither foxes nor fire are pink in real life.

    Developer Edition:
    Somebody said it was hard to distinguish from the others for colorblind people. I’d suggest the blueprint/outline theme the browser UI had for a while, thus adding to geometry.

    The proposed color scheme looks like ice to me, I’d prefer it wayy darker. Maybe add some stars for geometric distinction?

    Masterbrand thingy (System 2)
    The swirl looks abstract and artificial, like the tail in that system. If it was as fluffy as the tail in system 1, I’d take it.

    The first special-purpose logo in System 1 reminds me more of an existing soil brand in Germany. I think I saw it at Dehner Gartencenter.
    Also, the first “new-app” logo gives me a Deja-vu.
    Apart from the Image and the Lock, they don’t convey any meaning either.

    I want animals hugging things. Animals who care about me. (Or at least some part of them, like that fluffy tail)

  311. Alain-Michel wrote on

    System I for sure. Fancy and chic!

  312. Oliver Beyer wrote on

    The (System #1) Masterbrand Icon really looks great and would be a bold step forward for the brand. Stands out among the other browser icons and is really easy recognizable. It’s definitely more “foxxy”.

  313. Josh wrote on

    System 1 all the way for me!

  314. MyName wrote on

    System 1 = GitLab
    System 2 is the way to go… :o)

  315. Joshua wrote on

    System 1 for me! System 1 looks like the most design-forward.

    Love it simplicity, but not digging the sticker-look of system 2. Reminds me of 2014.

  316. Urceus wrote on

    The master logo from 1 says “Firefox” so much clearer than 2, but it would be even better if it was blended or natural, and not just blocks of shapes

  317. gipixez wrote on

    All images in that post present clicheed, boring, tasteless, archaic, unpleasant design, looking like it was ripped from some developing country’ startup with 3 employees.

  318. vosspl wrote on

    To me the Set 1 Browser icons look really unbalanced, I miss the elegance of the quantum browser icon. All the other Icons are fine for me.

  319. Michael wrote on

    By far, System 2.

  320. Florian wrote on

    System 1 is perfect. Each design is linked to the masterbrand.

    Too much color variation for the other system.

  321. Mehdi wrote on

    System 1

  322. SLAMNDAN wrote on

    I much prefer the system 1 options, and I disagree with others who think it looks too much like gitlab’s logo. I think the two are distinct enough.
    Although the chrome-like icon from the second row does need to change.

  323. Adnan Issadeen wrote on

    Either System 1 or 2 will work fine for the icons. For the master brand however, System 2 entirely. You can still see the elements of the past in it enough for it to be recognisable. That is evolution.

    To change to System 1 will not be an “evolution” of the brand. It will be to ask people to embrace an entirely different one. I’m all for change, and I could shrug and continue to use Firefox if you changed to System 1. I’m not going to take to the internet to say something terrible has happened. But in purely objective terms it’s impossible to define System 1’s Masterbrand as any form of evolution. It is not recognisable. It has nothing to do with the current logo to anyone who might be shown it without the context of this post. And adopting it would do nothing to show the change in Firefox’s mission. All that the System 1 Masterbrand does is to shock and say “hey we’ve changed for the sake of change”.

    PS – If you had said that system 1’s Masterbrand was a rebranding of Gitlab, I’d believe you.

  324. Jason wrote on

    System 2 seems a bit more polished.

  325. Francesco wrote on

    Both systems looks like Firefox.

    System 1 is more cohesive, however I feel hard to distinguish differences between icons.\

    System 2 looks more innovative, clear and adequate for Firefox position.

  326. Gnoti wrote on

    Good job! System 1. More flat design. But I also like the Masterbrand icon of System 2 which is easier to remind people of the present Firefox visual identity. But the fox head is good too and I don’t mind changing. So generally, I vote for system 1.

  327. Joseph wrote on

    System 1 is easier to read. Seriously though, all those icons are too noisy, in an time were icons get simpler. Scale them down a notch. Browser icons from system 2 are better imho.

  328. Semion wrote on

    Leave current icon – and do work on api for removed addons instead.

  329. Lisa wrote on

    System 1

  330. Klaus-J. Wolf wrote on

    I guess the use of less complex (read: simplified) ideograms is not helpful. The required association with the original brand is no longer possible.

  331. Daniel Aprea wrote on

    I like System 1. It’s fancy, modern and the icons concept is uniform.

  332. Basset wrote on

    System 1, whitout hesitation !

  333. NAnonim wrote on

    I Prefer System 2 because it is modern

  334. binaryanomaly wrote on

    System 2 – General purpose browser icons are ok, though a bit too playful for my taste.

    System 1 Masterbrand looks like a not as good copy of github – don’t go this way.
    System 1 and 2 – Singularly-focused icons: No like, both of them
    System 1 and 2 – Icons for apps and services: No like, both of them

    Please don’t make the icons something embarrassingly playful. It’s a browser and not a toy, it should look somewhat professional.

    I almost prefer the current Firefox Quantum icon.

  335. Alberto wrote on

    Oh! I like the first one!

  336. Les wrote on

    System 2 is more preferable, as it looks nicer, understandable than system 1. And it is simpler in connection with all the previous iterations. Also, I wouldn’t mind Mozilla to redesign Thunderbird icon and look in same tyle.

  337. jonatjano wrote on

    I personally prefer system 2.
    But I think the colors of the “for new app” icons are too far away from the others icons colors. If I saw these elsewhere I would not link them to Firefox.

  338. Makif wrote on

    Definitely System 1.

  339. Alexandre Grais wrote on

    I prefer system 2 as system 1 does remind me too much of Gitlab.

    I really like the 3 different foxes which comfort me with the existing brand but gives a new fresh look and dynamic.

  340. Giorgi T. wrote on

    I support System 2 because I want my support for Mozilla Firefox to be distinguishable from GitLab! Also, it’s about the “Fire” not about the “Fox” in Firefox! This is from a life-long Firefox user! Love…

  341. Robert wrote on

    system 2 is easier to recognize and seems clearer to me in its structure

  342. ScoRp wrote on

    I vote for System 2

  343. Jonny Scholes wrote on

    Great to see Firefox looking for a cohesive design system for all their exciting projects! System 1 has some promise I think. My 2c :)

    System 1 – browser icons are my favourite ones of all icons. I saw someone comment somewhere “only foxes chasing their tales are Firefox” and I agree. With that in mind I question the need for a master icon that is not either the same as the Firefox browser icon (or is a close variation of it). It seems a pity to divorce the master brand mark from the mark that has defined the brand for decades.

    The other system 1 icons are much better than system 2 but none of them feel particularly strong when standing on their own (although I recognize this may be because they are earlier drafts). I think they are on the right track but I’d like to see something more than just colour and curved corners in common. Perhaps play on the circular motion of the main fiefox logos or the sharp ends of the tail contrasting with the softer edges if the face? I’m not sure but I also feel like those gradients might lose contrast when viewed by someone who suffers from colour blindness and make the logos just… Shapes.

    System 2 – all the icons other than the master + broawr icons are busy and feel cheap. At smaller sizes they become hard to recognise what’s going on in them.

    Looking forward to seeing more :D

  344. Alexandre CUGNOT wrote on

    System 2 for sure

  345. Twixes wrote on

    I love those System 2 masterbrand and general purpose browser icons, others look out of place though. They would look much better without all those odd folds and twists (less 3D).

  346. Manon LE CLOAREC wrote on

    I love more the System 2, but both are superb. Great job !

  347. Carlo Gamna wrote on

    I’ll pick system 2 (eventuali if I prefer the old logo)

  348. Pedro Guerrato wrote on

    System 1! I think the fox must always be the icon of Mozilla and the system 1 shows it better!

  349. Giak wrote on

    System 2 is awesome!

  350. Emma wrote on

    the system 1 is the BEST

  351. Petit Etre Malfaisant wrote on

    I’ll go for system 2 !

  352. Steve12L wrote on


    Definitly system 1 ! Great job. 👍

  353. Luxi wrote on

    I prefer System 2. System 1 remembered me on Google Chrome with the edges.

  354. Alexander Brüning wrote on

    Honestly, I’m not feeling either one. The current browser logo is a really nice evolution of the original, the first one seems overly simplistic except for the head and the second just isn’t right without the earth in there. Both seemed to be attempts at forcing minimalism/flatness where it isn’t needed. Besides, the master icon from #1 looks a lot like the GitLab logo.

    The Firefox logo, to me, already is a pretty strong, long-lasting brand. Don’t undermine that. If I had to choose one I’d go with #2 because the other icons are clearer.

  355. Tomasz wrote on

    In my opinion System 1 is better!

  356. Jeff wrote on

    I like System 2 better. Great work!

  357. Scott wrote on

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this process- I support your work! Here are my thoughts:

    System 1:
    Pros: Color scheme is modern/in line with what all the cool kids like these days, and ties together the icons well. Browser level icons still look like a fox speeding around the world, just with updated colors and slightly different lines. The foxes arm is gone and, hey, who misses it?
    Masterbrand icon looks like Gitlab, as others have said. It also loses any of the visual idea of fire beyond the red and yellow colors. Maybe that’s not such a big deal, but you DO have brand identity already. Also, I feel like as the internet moves onto more touchscreens, it’s easier/more satisfying to put your finger on a circle, not this fix shape. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it is less pleasing to push icons with sharp edges.

    System 2:
    Very few for me. The masterbrand and browser level logos are touchable? I like the 3-D twists in the lower level icons as opposed to a simple flat aesthetic (cough Google’s material design cough). Still keeps a bit of the old Firefox in there. I like the colors.

    Many. The masterbrand logo loses both the fox (except the tail sort of) and the world, and just looks boring and nondescript. They don’t convey anything about the company or its values really. For the browser and master levels, where is the world that the fox was circling? Is it dead? Feels like it. The lowest level logos seem too playful/ whimsical- I think someone on here already compared them to Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint for Mac circa 2013. I agree, they feel a step behind. Some are so abstract it’s hard to know what’s happening in them.

    Good luck!

    1. Valentin wrote on


  358. Spyware Dr wrote on

    System 2

  359. hamsta wrote on

    Second one is much better. Love it!

  360. John wrote on

    System 2 has my vote.

  361. Aires wrote on

    Clearly System 2 icons but including the globe in Firefox icons. Old designs that are recognized by public as good enough and classical must be maintained as they are more valuable than an in principle perfect design.

    What I hate of system 1 is that it continues the progressive simplification of designs, make it resembling to a child drawing.

  362. Robyn wrote on

    Love System 2!

  363. anonizmus wrote on


  364. Jefferson Leutério wrote on


    Main Icon: System 2
    Others Icons: System 1

  365. Fernando Henrique wrote on

    The visual system 1 has more cohesion. Very quickly it is realized that they belong to the same company (perhaps it is simply the color system, more homogeneous). And the MasterBrand is certainly much cooler than System 2.

    But despite all the arguments is the system 2 that would be my choice, in the current work, because the browser icon feels incredible, simple and enjoyable. I already feel like clicking on it, which definitely does not occur me up with the system 1.

  366. Benjamin Buch wrote on

    I would prefer system 2 icons over system 1. They look much more ‘open’. What I don’t like are the different colors for apps and services in system 2.

  367. Godlike wrote on


    System 1 is better but i don’t care it! I NEED an editable, scalable, fast speeddial with multiple label and customizable thumbs option from custom made photos !!!! Like super start plugin.

  368. LG wrote on

    I prefer System 1, it’s more stylistic (a bit too much Google-like though) and I don’t like the twisted 3D of the system 2 icons (too much Office for Mac)

  369. Omar El Khatib wrote on

    System 1 is much better.. both are really minimalist and material design

  370. Benjamin wrote on

    First, the master icons:
    I really don’t like the System 1 Master Icon. It’s too similar to the Gitlab logo (although non-developers wouldn’t notice) and it feels very static.
    In contrast, I like the one from System 2. It’s good, but as another comment pointed out, the first Firefox Logo of System 2 would be abetter fit to represent the firefox product family.
    It looks a bit too generic, for me. But in the end, it reminds me of firefox very well by the flame tail design.

    Next the browser icons:
    I also prefer System 2 there. It looks more fluent and not that chaotic.

    Third, the Singularly-focused browsers:
    System 2 seems more balanced than system 1.
    In general, System 1 seems more unresting as System two. I think because the first system has too many different colors.
    However, I think that the System 1 icons are clearly better in conveying meaning.
    System 2 icons look more generic to me, which could be a good or a bad thing.
    I think, I would like System 2 the most, if there where some more hints in the icons on what that actually is.

    And last, the new apps & services icons:

    These are the ones for the most debate.
    Again, System 1 does convey meaning better for the most part. Only the last icon on the bottom right in System 1 is unclear to me, as well as the first icon in the top left, eventually (depending on the product it’s used for)
    BUT System 1 also still has too much chaos. It uses geometric shapes and colors all over the place.
    The icons would be better when they would vary less in some degrees.

    Look at the gallery icon in system 1 for example (the second one from the top left, isn’t that a gallery icon?)
    It uses the following 5 (!) shapes: circle, pie slice with rounded corner, parallelogram, triangles, rectangle with rounded corners.
    And it uses 13 visually distinguishable colors! Event if some of them are the same color code, they look very different because of the positioning alongside each other in combination with these hard shape edges.
    This creates a chaotic feeling for me which makes the icon very not appealing.
    I think, it would improve drastically when you leave the circles out in combination with the colored pie slices.
    Yes, it would look a bit boring then, but certainly not that chaotic.
    And you could spice it up as well as improving brand recognition by bringing the flame from the second system back as a design element.

    In general, using the flame as a simple, brand recognizable object would be a great strategy.
    Then the logo would be able to come in a variety of different colors as well, without breaking recognisability.
    This is the problem with the System 2 logos for new apps & services.

    First, i can’t imagine any content with these icons, besides the gallery icon. (In fact, i used this gallery icon to figure out, that the second icon in system one should be a gallery, so this is the only exception which conveys much meaning!)
    Second, the colors are off firefox, so brand recognition is hurt.
    With the cuves and the colors they look more like Samsung icons to me.
    Nothing bad about curves, I really like curves and you should keep them to make the icons feel smoother.
    But you need something for brand recognition, for example the flame, which I already mentioned.
    This recognizable element would help these logos a lot.

    Thanks for your time reading through these loooong community feedbacks and use them well!

  371. Vince wrote on

    System 1 👍🏻

  372. Jayant Moosad wrote on

    System 2 all the way!

    System 1 feels derivative and confusing.

    System 2 can be improved if animated… Imagine lines of flames forming the FF logo and then twisting & turning to form all the other icons in the system. Even the Main logo, although a distilled flame, would look cool if animated within the circle ( like old Sony_Ericcson logo)

    Do these two systems still feel like Firefox?
    >> System 2 is more relatable.

    How visually cohesive is each of them? Does each hold together?
    >> System 2 is not flat and would look cohesive even in mono color styles. System 1 fails if rendered in any mono color.

    Can the design logic of these systems stretch to embrace new products in the future?
    >> System 2 design is more open and malleable

    Do these systems reinforce the speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation that Firefox stands for?
    >> System 2 designs , if animated, would reflect all the above.

    Do these systems suggest our position as a tech company that puts people over profit?
    >> System 2 design is more open and relatable.

  373. Eric wrote on

    system 1 all the way

  374. RubbelDeCatc wrote on

    I like System 1. It’s clear more “harmonic”.

    But there is one aspect I like in system 2.
    The blue earth in the back of the browser Icons only make sense if it can be identified as a globe!

  375. Jbvdc wrote on

    A fox is a fox. Un renard est un renard.

  376. Kat wrote on

    So, I like system 1 better in all respects. The reason is this. I believe that those icons are more cohesive, visually. Except for the general purpose browser icons, which are rounded and flow-y, the rest of the icons are bold, basic shapes, and they seem to retain the bold, creative individuality of the Mozilla brand.

    System 2, on the other hand, is far less visually cohesive. The style jumps around from the sweeping shapes of the main icon and the general purpose browser, to the skinny, curvy lines of the “singularly focused browser icons” and the “icons for new apps & services”. They don’t scream “Firefox” to me, they’re more generic.

    So, in short, System 1 feels like it has a new, but still distinctly cohesive, bold, “Firefox-y” feel. Which I believe is good. System 2 is indecisive and can’t figure out of it’s Firefox or something else.

  377. Mark wrote on

    The masterbrand from System 2 is evocative of the current Firefox branding enough to maintain some sort of continuity. I also prefer the browser icons from System 2, but not the focused and app icons; they look a bit too much like they came from FontAwesome or the Noun Project with some color added in Illustrator. The System 1 icons look original and distinctive.

  378. David wrote on

    System 1 across the board. Far more modern-looking, and more cohesive in terms of color scheme (though a bit more of the purple in them wouldn’t hurt).

  379. Ninja wrote on

    I’d say leave the fox around the world icon. That system 1 masterbrand fox head is HIDEOUS. If you must then use the second. But really, leave the world and the fox there.

    Also, primary icons from system 1, all the rest from 2 if you must. But generally speaking… I don’t like neither.

  380. Dario wrote on

    System 1 is awesome! Go system 1!

  381. Varun wrote on

    Long-time continuous user of Firefox (nee Firebird, nee Phoenix) here voting (mostly) for System 1… just can you please bring the master logo from System 2? They really seem like they were swapped at birth.

  382. Bird wrote on

    In my opinion, I think that Mozilla may be better off building on the existing Firefox brand (System 2), because it is the icon that many of us know and recognise. But I feel the globe is important too.

    We could have a modern brand based on the existing icon, but also have a “heritage” brand for hardcore enthusiasts and historical activities.

  383. Banefy wrote on

    System 2

  384. Alex P wrote on

    Retaining the two-tone blue and orange in the logo is important for recognising the program icon. The form of the icon isn’t as important, but the blue and orange is iconic and helps differentiate it from a number of other tools.

  385. ziel00ny90 wrote on

    System 1

  386. George M wrote on


  387. Callen wrote on

    I like System 2 for the brand icon and browser icons 10/10. For the other icons I like 1 slightly more, but both sets are OK to me 6/10.

  388. Travis M wrote on

    I prefer System 1, but think System 2’s colors are better

  389. Josh wrote on

    I like the master icon from System 2 a bit better, but like System 1 more as a cohesive whole. I think the System 2 icons don’t do a good enough job conveying the ideas behind them.

  390. Mark Bennett wrote on

    I’m a developer, not a designer, but I really like the clean bold lines of System 1. The colours in System 2 are nicer but the secondary icons aren’t sharp enough in my mind.

    Perhaps you could do something like System 1 with a bit more colour like in System 2?

  391. john wrote on

    System 1 BUT do not use the master icon, only the rest of the icons. do not depart too much from the fox encompassing the globe, it has a deeper and grander meaning while whqt does that fox head say at all? Ill have to explain to a child, thats the new frefox icon and he or she will say so what. While the fox encompassing the globe says so much without me explaining anything at all.

  392. Venca wrote on

    System 1 FTW!

  393. petro wrote on

    System 2 only

  394. Ralph Bolton wrote on

    I vote for leaving the branding as it is. Move all the non-browsing functionality out of Firefox and into extensions, make Firefox the super-lean, fast browser it once was. Give us the browsing features we want, like tab isolation, multi-process, ‘incognito’ tabs (to use Chrome parlance) and so on. Everything else should be an extension. Bundle a load of ‘popular’ extensions on new downloads if you feel that would be useful, but let us uninstall the ones we don’t want (which will help you understand what features the populous actually wants).

    As far as the other apps go – maybe rebrand them if you feel you must. If you need some sort of name for your ‘eco system’, then give it one if you feel you must. But please, just give us a strong competitor to Chrome that does one thing and does it really well. Everything else is secondary.

  395. Ryan wrote on

    System 2 gets my vote. Thought I love elements of System 1 – primarily the Firefox Masterbrand icon – System 2’s icons are more dynamic. At a glance, it’s simply easier to tell them apart – the primary factor I care about for usability day to day. The colouration in system 1 is too similar across all icons.

  396. ItzStg wrote on

    Hey there Firefox.

    First of all I wanted to say that Firefox is my got-to browser for my phone, for my laptop and my for desktop since 5 years back. So, I want to give you my honest opinion. What I would prefer as the new Firefox logos would be the specific ones right here: The System 1 Firefox Masterbrand Icon with all the other System 2 Icons.

    Best Regards,

  397. Magess wrote on

    System 1 looks like Gitlab almost exactly. That can’t be a good move for a master brand logo.
    It’s hard to say if the icons in System 2 “mean” more since we don’t know what exact things they are meant to represent, but keeping the curled fox for the master logo would definitely make me identify something as a Mozilla application. The only thing from System 2 I can identify is an icon that looks like image editing, and if I compare that to the System 1 icon in the same placement, I can kind of see how System 1’s icon might be image editing, but it’s nowhere near as clear.

    This makes me think that System 2 is the better choice.

  398. Nat wrote on

    I’m a graphic designer and I love group 1 so much !!! Go for it please :)

  399. Dick wrote on

    System 2 but only because the color palette of system 1 offers little contrast. A quick glance at the icon yields a nearly homogenous blob of color. System 2 icons are clearly, or more clearly, defined

  400. Anastasiia wrote on

    Definitely Group 1!

  401. Donna wrote on

    My preference is for System 2. I consider it a more modern representation of the current one. System 1 is way tooooo different and does not look at all like the firefox I know and love.

  402. Jackson wrote on

    I like the icon shapes more from system 1 but the color application more from system 2.

  403. Ben wrote on

    System 1. I like that the browser icon retains the globe at the center.

  404. Alex wrote on

    Overall, I like the new icons a lot. However, from a constructive point of view, I’ll point out some issues and/or refinements:
    – System 1 icons need more colors (borrow from system 2 colors),
    – System 2 icons look too playfull, also they look like stickers.
    – System 2 icons use a design language that, in my opinion, looks fine on paper, but not too good on the final product (like shown on the galaxy).
    – System 1 general icon look more, well, general than the system 2 one. The whole point of a general icon is to express all services as a single identity. System 2 general icon resembles the broswer one. I admit tha firefox is a core project of mozilla, mozilla is not all about the browser.

    Hope this comment is helping you!

  405. Stefan wrote on

    In general, I like system 1 more, because it looks more professional, modern and has a more simple feeling to it, as to being a functional browser instead to being a “childish” browser – which vibe I get when I look at system two.
    The only problem I have with system 1 is that the master icon not that original and so head on “ugh, a fox’s head”, while system 2, with only the tail visible, feels iconic and fast, due to the fox “being so quick” that he’s already out of the frame, thus the website has already been loaded.
    And even though I like the fur of the system 1 browser icon, I think it could be a little bit to much, plus the head seems to be a little bit to big… I could even think of the possibility leaving the head out, such as being behind the globe or something like that. But because I don’t exactly know what it looks like, and it could be too much of a change to the original, it is probably a not really good idea.

  406. Pete Dodge wrote on

    I love the System 1 masterbrand logo. It captures the essence of a browser (translucent open book with diamond background showing through) while still paying homage to the fox. I’m a sucker for leit-motif, so this really appeals to me.

    But! I prefer the System 2 version of the general purpose curling fox designs over System 1’s which give the impression of being less agile, more stodgy and “weighty” over all.

    The icons for single purpose browsing and special apps in System 2 also take a step too far from the masterbrand for either system (in my opinion.) I think you could find workable iconography while still giving a slight nod to the main brand. Continuity is not your enemy.

    The System 1 iconography is better in this regard, but could rely less heavily on color scheme to reference the main brand by hewing to transparency and suggestive forms. (Lose the bounding box on the Mountains icon, use translucency of colors to define the forms for example.)

    Anyway, great work!

  407. DoHyung wrote on

    I like the system 2 more than the system 1. But in the case of the masterbrand icon, I think I like the one in the system 1. Anyway if I have to choose only one system, I’ll do the system 2.

    The icons are really slick and modern. Good job!

  408. Pam McClung wrote on

    I agree with many of the other comments – I like the group 1 icons and the browser icons from group 2. I have used Firefox pretty much as my only browser for many, many years and love the brand. I hope they keep the look and feel of the fiery little fox that is the brand. Not a bad idea to have a bit of an update though. I’m a designer myself and love to see how logos evolve over time. It can be a tricky process and a bit of a minefield!

  409. RU-DIK wrote on

    System 2 !!!!!!!

  410. Shahab Siavash wrote on

    Definitely System 2 is better.

  411. Jonathan Cannizzaro wrote on

    I prefer System 1.

  412. Ben Barkett wrote on

    I like the design of system 1, but I think I’d like it even more if it shared some of the color schemes from system 2. The non-browser icons from system 2 remind me a lot of the design scheme from microsoft office for mac 2011, and I’m not sure how much I like that, but the colors you used for them look great. I like the icon design of the non browser icons for system 1, but i think it’d be hard to distinguish between them if they all keep the same color scheme.

  413. jeff jonez wrote on

    The color temperature shift in each system between warm and cold makes it hard to view them all as a cohesive set.

    More problematically, the saturation and gradients on system one is so high that it’s interfering with my ability to see the color shifts within the designs. I’m not sure how well system one would read for people with reduced color perception either.

  414. Andy wrote on

    Orange : NO
    Blue : YES

  415. John wrote on

    System 1 for sure. The system 2 icons look they’re from 2008, and don’t look right as app icons. The system 2 browser icon is sort of hard to see when it’s shrunk down to app size.

  416. lamic wrote on

    System 1, because the color scheme is closer to firefox ( purple in the middle )

  417. LJ Banks wrote on

    I really appreciate that you have opened this up for comments.

    System 1 Masterbrand looks extremely close to GitLab’s logo and will cause confusion because it is a departure from Firefox’s well-known logo and an unintentional copy of another.

    System 2 Masterbrand is a variation and a modernization of Firefox’s logo and much more compelling. Especially for people who are familiar with and already have trust in the brand. I like System 2.


  418. David wrote on

    System 1 clearly beats #2. Especially in terms of concistency. The new app icon set of #2 looks like it has been designed by another team -maybe the old designer team of Office? It somehow reminds of the old MS Office icon set… Can’t get this out of my mind. Besides this issue, the second one looks fine. However, #1 is taking a more modern approach than the other.

  419. NoName wrote on

    I prefer “System1”.

  420. Erin wrote on

    System 2! It still has the iconic foxtail-swish we all know and love and look for in our Firefox. Also I love how the icons are more open. System 1’s icons seem to blend into the same color/shape and it’s harder to differentiate between them at a glance.

  421. Daria wrote on

    Definitely System 2! Love it!

  422. jason wrote on

    System 2 looks great.

  423. Todd Nottingham wrote on

    I like System 2 more than 1, but both are GREAT!

  424. mbrody wrote on

    I prefer system 2, except the master icon which looks unfinished.

    Aside from aesthetics, it’s more obvious to me what each icon stands for in system 2. System 1 requires too much “decoding” in my head.

  425. Lucas wrote on

    I like master brand 1 more. If you’re radically breaking from the old branding, go all the way with it — make something completely different. I also just like the look of the geometric/abstract fox.

    Tbh I don’t like any of the system icons. Both are too busy, but System 2’s use of shadows and gradients is too much IMO. I like the illustrations themselves but the “origami” kinda 3D foldy look is not my thing.

  426. mbs wrote on

    The “Gitlab” style fox should not be used.

    Apart from that, I’m not fond of the white space in system 2.

    Anyway, Firefox has an “iconic” design and should stay closer to its roots.

    The over simplification that is going on nowadays makes everything unremarkable and forgetful.

    Maybe add more detail to the logos instead…

  427. Seean Kim wrote on

    I see some strengths in both design systems that I think could benefit from each other!

    Some things I enjoy from system 1:
    – The boldness and modern feel of the icons.
    – The clarity of the designs, especially at mobile viewports.

    And from system 2:
    – The simplicity, especially the more monochromatic color theming
    – Some instances of more natural design language ex. Under Icons for new apps & services the Image icon

    However what makes each of these systems strong lead to some potential issues respectively. For instance, in system 1 the bold icons can sometimes feel very muddled in their meaning because it starts feeling like a hodgepodge of shapes (and with little reference to commonplace design patterns which could add a learning curve). In system 2 because of both the simplicity of the logos themselves and the more monochromatic theming, contrast becomes an issue at smaller viewports. For example, the phone demo image with the system 2 icons is already a bit difficult to properly see (especially at the light gold parts against the white background), so that may make it even more difficult for users with vision impairment.

    I think theres an opportunity to look at a middle ground between the two. Possibly combining the thick bold look of system 1 with some simplicity in color and shape from system 2 could lead to a best of both worlds!

    To be a little more specific, fine line designs are a bit harder to discern on mobile screens and can look even messier when scaled down, which is why they are not as common for mobile icons (and when they are they are usually very simple patterns, rather than intricate shapes). So in case you do want to go with a more simplistic design, you could consider a similar case of patterns and simpler shapes vs the current intricate shapes of system 2! And finally a small tidbit about the masterbrand icon, the system 2 icon feels a bit more iconic of Mozilla and all the great work you have done. System 1 seems more generic and feels a bit more like it could get lost in the crowd.

    Thanks for opening up the floor to the public, I wish the team at Mozilla the best!

  428. woosuk park wrote on

    well, me either, i choose system 2. system 1 is awesome, but it’s lacked

  429. Matt wrote on

    I prefer the System 1 Masterbrand and General-Purpose browser icons, System 2’s Singularly-Focused browser icons, and the System 1apps & services icons.

  430. Victor wrote on

    Masterbrand icon:

    I prefer system 1 over system 2 for the masterbrand icon. System 2 is very similar to the current browser icon and doesn’t do enough to show a difference between the browser and all of the products associated with that browser. It also loses the fox part of Firefox, since it becomes just a swirl rather than including the fox head that currently exists in the logo. (I also personally really love this logo)

    System 1 is a new take on Firefox while leaving the traditional swirl for the browser and the identity the browser has with users. It also leaves a lot for other products because it doesn’t establish a similar shape for other icons, but is a distinguished shape that no other product will take on.

    Browser Icon:

    I think there a little bit too much overlap in the system 1 icons. Dev and nightly icons are very similar in color and the tail of the icon is nearly the same color. I don’t think they have enough color to distinguish between the two. They also look very busy, and on a taskbar or dock that is small, the detail in the icon, especially the head of the fox, might get lost.

    System 2 is much and the colors are much more distinguished than system 1. The tail in the dev logo goes to turquoise rather than Blue like the nightly one does. The detail is also simplified and minimalist.

    Remaining icons:

    The line based icons in system 2 dont really have visual cohesion with the browser icons. The line breaks found in the icons also doesn’t work well the any browser icon in either system and feels very out of place. While these icons do allow for plenty of new products, they don’t really feel like an evoloution of Mozilla or firefox icons but rather something new that doesn’t feel like Firefox.

    System 1 icons don’t really do enough to allow for other products. If I picture having a lot of these Firefox products on my homescreen, I would have an overwhelming amount of orange and blue icons. Adding more color could help distinguish between these icons. System 2 has excellent greens and blues and pinks, and I think system 1 would benefit from more colors and become more versatile.

  431. Adam wrote on

    Yeah I have to say number 2 because it does look like gitlab logo, I had no idea what it looked like so I had to look it up don’t you don’t want to get into legal trouble not saying you will but yet its better to safe than sorry.. the only thing I don’t like about 2 is how you change colors on the icons

  432. William Averill wrote on

    System one

  433. Sobreney Brésil wrote on

    I prefer Group 2 because the icons are much recognizable and prettier.

  434. Michael wrote on

    I prefer the Firefox and masterbrand icons from System 2, but the rest from System 1. I feel like this combination offers the most consistent colours and thickness.

  435. Ben wrote on

    System 1 browser icons, system 2 general icons

  436. Mark wrote on

    I lean much more heavily towards System 2 because it’s all much more clear and understandable. The lower-level icons stand on their own, and are easily identifiable, but possibly stray from the overall Firefox brand. But in System 1 those icons are so tightly designed around the new fox icon that it all just says “Firefox” and not much else.

  437. Brian wrote on

    System 1 is far more cohesive. I have a slight preference for the fox master brand icon in system 1, but the abstracted fox in system 2 is also quite strong. It’s in the browser, apps and icons where system 2 just falls apart. System 1 remains cohesive and compelling, while in the secondary icons/logos system 2 looks like a generic font-awesome topic icon or somesuch.

    So my strong preference is for system 1.

  438. Scheryl wrote on

    System 2 for me :) — System 1 feels a bit clunky….

  439. Jack Hagley wrote on

    I have an intense adverse reaction to the fox face logo.
    In terms of evolution System 2 is closest. System 1 feels like a departure.

  440. arjun wrote on

    I love the approach that mozilla takes to its design.

    I however did not like either of the options. Neither of which have an ‘aha’ like the new mozilla logo. The systems feel like abstraction for the sake of abstraction.

  441. Jon H wrote on

    I vastly prefer “System 2”. The whole set feels cohesive, the main icons feel more like “Firefox” to me, and the app icons are very attractive *and* distinct from other brands (a difficult thing to accomplish these days). They look cool, modern, and the styling is very flexible, lending itself toward adding new icons to the set as needed.

    By contrast, several of the “System 1” icons resemble those of other services too much, making them look derivative of other brands or like “the firfox skin of “. The “System 1” color palette also has fewer colors which makes the icons look a little too similar to each other as well.

    For all of the stated criteria in the post, I would say “System 2” is clearly more successful.

  442. Adam wrote on

    I also want to add its not really about legal trouble and more about how the media and news reacts if it you do something similar to gitlabs unless you have brand identity… Also most masterbrand logo browsers have either a circular shape or square shape were you trying to going for something different?

  443. Katrina Ambrose wrote on

    System 2 is reproducible in silhouette form, so it wins. Logos need to be flexible, especially for printing on swag which is sometimes a one color print.

    The icons meanings are pretty clear and easily recognizable.

    System 1 is neat, but too abstract.

  444. Vincent wrote on

    The system 2 reminds me more of the Mozilla footprint, and is looking better than the first one, especially for the web browser icons

  445. le hollandais volant wrote on

    System 1.

    It maybe a little too flashy, but the main icon might somehow mark a break in the logotype that would have been needed to give a kick to the “quantum revolution”.
    Even if Firefox Quantum changed everything, it still has that image of an old browser that has to be replaced by Chrome.

    I even would use the main icon (that fox head) for the main Firefox Browser icon, and use chromatic variants of that (in gray, blue…) for beta, nightly releases.

  446. Jon H wrote on

    I vastly prefer “System 2”. The whole set feels cohesive without everything looking the same, the main icons feel more like “Firefox” to me, and the app icons are very attractive *and* distinct from other brands (a difficult thing to accomplish these days). They look cool, modern, and the styling is very flexible, lending itself toward adding new icons to the set as needed.

    By contrast, several of the “System 1” icons resemble those of other services too much, making them look derivative of other brands or like “the firfox skin of “. The “System 1” color palette also has fewer colors which makes the icons look a little too similar to each other as well. The set is cohesive, but it is almost *too* cohesive.

    For all of the stated criteria in the post, I would say “System 2” is clearly more successful.

  447. Joe Denver wrote on

    I think System2 is more clear and looks way more streamlined.

  448. Maurice wrote on

    I think the System 1 icons in general look a little to close to google’s icon set, also the master icon looks exactly like gitlabs icon.

    System 2 however is very nice, very much on brand and unique enough, but similar enough to be easily recognizable as firefox icons. definitely the better choice.

  449. Kevin Coulson wrote on

    The iconography in set 1 is too far from the cultural images in use and will confuse established users. Set 2 will allow users to anticipate the functionality for most of the symbols. I note that between set 1 and set 2, the two symbols’ positions have been transposed on the bottom row. The () is on the left in one set and on the right in the other. Your users have to compare icon apples to apples in this Rosette stone.

  450. Tomás wrote on

    As other have said it, System 1 masterbrand icon looks too much like Gitlab’s fox, so it gets really confusing. The rest of icons of System 1 look a lot more cohesive in general, in the style and the colors used, and I can relate them more to Firefox.

    Keep up the good work!

  451. Attila wrote on

    The System 2 icons are more identifiable to me at first look.

  452. Gerardo wrote on

    System 1

  453. Jeder wrote on

    For me it would be masterbrand and general-purpose browser icons from system 2, the rest from system 1

  454. ryan babcock wrote on

    Please don’t forget how iconic the current firefox logo is. It would be a shame to lose that brand recognition. System 1 main logo looks kinda silly.

  455. Ed B. wrote on

    The whole thing is a waste of time and money. Half the icons don’t even seem to relate to Mozilla to me.

  456. Andriy wrote on

    System 2

  457. Wade Campbell wrote on

    System 2 is clearer. System 1 is too abstract. I’m a 35-year graphic designer.

  458. Christopher Valcourt wrote on

    I adore system 1. but like the master icon of system 2 just a little more. SYSTEM 1!

  459. Léunar wrote on

    I’ve read some of the comments in order not to reiterate too much. I too preffer the first system.
    the resemblance of the master logo with the Gitlab logo is clear, but then again a) Gitlab is not necessarily a brand with awareness in the same space as a general purpose Web Browser (I would not expect that at all) and b) It is Gitlab to take the icon of a fox (this was bound to happen eventually)! Furthermore, and i don’t know if this is intentional, Firefox’s master logo in system one contains the pages of an open book. Which talks about knowledge, and is, i think, a great hint (although perhaps more adequate for a Firefox wiki app?). I also love how the colors in the individual logos in system one are much more contrasty and the shapes are simpler, easier to reduce in size, and i think, easier to remember.
    System 2 doesn’t do anything for me in terms of shapes or colors. Stylish, sure, but more anonymous.
    Indeed the only thing i preffer from system 2 is the Firefox Quantum icons, more similar to the current one and thus more recognizable. By simple virtue of brand awareness, I’m guessing these these will just have to do (brand awareness is the main enemy of all brand rennovation).
    And soembody already said this but masetr logo 1 is super anonymous. It even remind me of the Eye of Comodo Dragon web browser, or some version of Northon Antivirus. No.
    A doubt that remains in my mind is, if there is a logo hyerarchically above Firefox Browser (the master icon)… what does that mean for the Mozilla brand?

  460. Riley wrote on

    The system 1 masterbrand icon is gorgeous, maybe a little vox media but as a stand alone piece it’s amazing so I’m in for system 1.
    To keep with the feeling of FireFox I feel the orange, red, pink color scheme is foremost, pieces like the general purpose browser icons for system 1 are not quite as cohesive when they remove the orange and pink or a couple of the icons for apps and services on system 2.
    The thoughts of staying warm colors does make the expansion to new products easier in some respects as you already have something tying them together as show by the numerous ideas proposed for other icons in those colors.
    The warm colors help with speed, maybe not safety quite as much.
    The system 1 are kinda cute so more wit than reliability and they look newer and more innovative where as the 3d effect on system 2 feels a little more dated.
    Again with the “cute” thought on system 1 is people over profit, which I think stands pretty in line with wit as it’s a person first design make it interesting and then as people think about it as person.

    As an extra thought can the iris icon (first system 1 singularly-focused browser icon) overlay each of the blades, I like the gradients, just feels a little out of line and maybe the overlay would help?

  461. Harold L. Bates wrote on

    In general, I like System 2 better than System 1, and feel that the icons look like a more cohesive group. System 1 feels like more of a departure for me. Either way … great work Mozilla!

  462. Guillermo wrote on

    System 2 is the best!!!

  463. dywined wrote on

    Vote for system 2, it’s a clean design easier to use correctly

  464. Axis wrote on

    Simply “too many colors and gardients”. These designs would have been cool 10 or 15 yesrs ago, but not now.
    Sorry for that comment. I am a graphics designer and I know what I am saying.

  465. Anthony wrote on

    I’m not hugely in love with either system, but I think that may be because they still need more work.

    That being said I give the edge to System 2, primarily due to the increased clarity presented by the icons for new apps and services. Two of the five in System 1 are completely inscrutable to me (upper right and lower left). The System 2 icons for new apps and services seem to have more potential for rendering understandable symbols.

  466. Russ wrote on

    I think System 2 looks better but with master brand icon 1.

  467. Steve Mercury wrote on

    Clearly System 1 is the more pleasing to the eye when it comes to the entirety for classic desktop and mobile apps.

  468. Brent wrote on

    To be taken seriously, Firefox needs a professional appearance.
    These new icons may please core fans, but they do not convey meanings that an average user can understand, and they use obnoxious colors that will drive users away.

    Try again.
    Or, get some professional design help.

  469. Sl wrote on

    I think an identity, organic or artificial, may evolve but the core is always the same. 15 years ago Mozilla bore Firefox and the logo told us who it was: I saw it as an artificial entity that felt organic, that changed and grew as it learned. It felt genuine.

    I don’t think the new system options show any of those signs of the initial joy when the browser was first introduced. The current designs feel generic, too mainstream to what is out there now which is not what I equate with browser nor the company.

  470. Benoît wrote on

    Me too! Group 1 for the brand logo with Group 2 browser icons.

  471. sarah wrote on

    Definitely prefer System 1! It’s simpler and instantly recognizable as a language

  472. ChrisR wrote on

    System 1 looks far more polished. Something about System 2 doesnt look as nice.

    The primary browsers icons are good on both systems but for me the deciding factor is the other apps icons, System 1 looks consistent while System 2 looks a little too random.

    Just my 2cents.

  473. Dec B wrote on

    I like system 1 the most, but I don’t like either master icon. I think that #1 doesn’t really fit with the rest of the brand, but #2 looks too generic. Maybe the master icon could be the head from the browser fox.

  474. Mat wrote on

    I feel like system one makes more sense and is more accessible – I wouldn’t be surprised to learn System one is the new Firefox logo. For people who hadn’t heard of the brand if someone were to show them system one over system too I feel like they would remember system ones association better as it’s more recognisable as a fox and colours fit.

    Also going down the hierarchy of system 2 it feels more like you copied icons from Samsung and don’t seem to fit with your brand.

  475. Nick wrote on

    As a graphic designer I have to say that I like the system 1 set better. System 2 seems like it has mixed design identities. There are the more conventional vector designs and then there some line art icon designs. The system 1 set has the same design identity throughout. Apart from that line art icons seem weaker to me and I believe that they don’t always work well in design.

  476. Nicolas wrote on

    System 2 reminds me of something I hate: a preloader. And that’s not fast or fast at all

  477. Iron wrote on

    System 1 <3

  478. TechnoBoy wrote on

    The icons are great to remove people’s bad taste of firefox and start a new page. Also they are very modern and detail-less. I love them. I choose the second group. They are great.

  479. Arash wrote on

    I quite like the system 1, except the Masterbrand Icon.
    Please use the master brand icon of system 2 and everything else from system 1.

  480. Gaelle wrote on

    I prefere system 2. The 1 is so minimalist and we don’t recognize mozilla system behind

  481. TomW wrote on

    System 2 has icons that are more recognizable and distinct, but less coherent as a whole than those of System 1. System 1 “future products” icons are too similar to each other and less indicative of function than those of system 2.
    Having said that, I think you should fire all the “brand designers” and other ballast and get back to your core competency, i.e. writing good software with better functionality than competitors that people actually want to use. Fancy graphics design is not going to save a crappy product or a team that ignores its own customers.

  482. Nick wrote on

    System 1

  483. D Mesmer wrote on

    I’d like to see the System 1 set, but with the System 2 masterbrand icon. What’s that in the middle of some of the System 2 Firefoxes…an elephant or a white rhino?

  484. Leonardo Piccioni wrote on

    Masterbrand icon: System 2’s is very clever. System 1’s is cute, too, but reminds me too much GitLab — and I guess this would be a popular complaint.

    General-purpose browser icons: Both are nice and recognizable. System 2’s are probably less similar to Chrome/Chromium’s logos, and has a clever use of negative space (but I wouldn’t mind if blue sphere returned), but fox’s ear and tail could match better.

    Singularly-focused browser icons and new apps and services: System 2 seems more coherent, from a stylistic standpoint, with general-purpose browsers and masterbrand. As a sidenote, I think both proposals to Focus browser very clever.

    In summary, both are very good work, but I prefer System 2.

  485. Andrey wrote on

    System 1

  486. Jorge Ramirez wrote on

    I like the system 1, but the main master brand reminds me about gitlab, about the System 2, I think the colors of the other apps makes me lose the relationship with firefox.

  487. Geert-Emo wrote on

    Personaly I appreciate the second set A LOT more than the first.

    The colors of ALL artwork are very agressive for my taste.
    They remind me of the color schemes on the first PCs back in the day (US taste, perhaps?)

    More interesting would be if Mozilla would stop trying to make Firefox look like Chrome (the new IE) and go it’s own way like up till some years ago… (remember Netscape?)(once the best browser).
    “New” and “going with the flow” is not always better….

  488. Chinmai Prabhune wrote on

    System one gives more of a big brother is watching you feeling.
    System 2 for me gives the comfort which an open source non profit browser has given me for more than a decade.
    System 2 it is for me
    Thank you

  489. Not Even Kidding wrote on

    This is what you’re doing? This is what you think is important.

    All the feedback(mostly negative) that you receive about the constant superfluous and completely unnecessary changes while problems and issues languish unaddressed, and this is what you think Mozilla and Firefox needs?

    More redecorating? More reshuffling of the Titanic’s deck chairs? Logos are not, nor do they “offer design tools”. They are stupid little icons. Firefox has a perfectly adequate one with exceptional global recognition. So, you’re plan is to break that too?

    Meanwhile, what was and should still be the predominant web browser (WEB BROWSER!) continues to be fat, slow, and increasingly irrelevant as it yet again, redecorates itself.


  490. Bruno Bazin wrote on


    I like the “general-purpose browser icons” of the system 1. Their blue background in the center of the pattern makes them more full and warm than those of the system 2.

    It’s the opposite for “singularity focused icons”. Blue makes those of the system 1 poorly readable. They also have a side “already seen elsewhere”. Those of System 2 are more readable and, given what is shown, more apt to express singularity.

    The same goes for the “new apps and services icons”: the system 1 is pleasant to the eye “from a distance” but less decipherable, less legible. It is fuller but suddenly less light and less clear. Even if the patterns are interesting (the keyhole in the middle of a hexagon), the range of colors that compose them make them less pleasant because less easy to decipher. The system 2 seems more promising.

    For the “firefox masterbrand icon” I like system 1: The fox head is rather well seen. The system 2 less evokes the change of logo, even if it is an interesting evolution of the existing one.

    Ultimately, the t-shirt is super classy. Where can I buy one ?!! :)

  491. Jeff wrote on

    System 1 for sure, except that the master brand icon is too angular to match well with the rounder icons in the set.

  492. Paul Strauss wrote on

    System 1 is more pleasing to my eye

  493. Dulce wrote on

    I like system 1 icons,not the colors for apps and services though. I think it’d look better if you use system 2 colors for system 1 apps icons.

  494. Daniel G. wrote on

    System #1 for sure.

    System #2, main icon loses the ‘fox’ also a few of the other icons show remind me of a janky netscape knock off.

  495. Tom wrote on

    System 1 FTW!

  496. Felice Croul wrote on

    I prefer system 1. I do like the system 2 masterbrand icon better than 1, but I don’t like the rest of the icons in system 2 group.

  497. Amelia wrote on

    Some great work here! I am also of the camp “System 1 Master Brand Icon with System 2 Singularly-focused icons”, I think the System 1 Singularly-focused icons are too abstract and ‘Microsoft-y’.

  498. Meryl wrote on

    The whole system is more distinct in the first direction! The other properties are recognizable as being related to the logo. In the second direction, the icons for apps and services look more like generic icons; I wouldn’t know they were related to the firefox logo if I hadn’t seen this article.

    I think the first direction is much more successful and is more recognizable as a brand!

  499. Lancelot wrote on

    I far prefer the system 1 icons, but the system 2 master logo captures more of the essence of Firefox, I feel.

    The system 2 logos look slightly childish and are less easy to understand

  500. ChrisJ wrote on

    Definitely System 1 – Foxy McFoxface

  501. Aleksandr wrote on

    System 1 overall seems like the better overall choice in my opinion, but man will that masterbrand icon take some getting used to. While definitely unique the geometric fox face makes me think of brands like GitLab or Metamask, but I think you all have done a good job of setting your design apart.

    System 2 honestly doesn’t feel like it belongs with the Mozilla ecosystem. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it almost feels too textured for controls (though I will admit the general browser icons are quite good).

  502. Victor wrote on

    I prefer the Group 2 Logo with Group 1 icons.

  503. Eric Jacobsen wrote on

    I was considering why I disliked the “System 1” approach so much when I coincidentally came across this on Gitlab…

    System 1 is just sort of simple and generic. System 2 is an evolution of a trademark that is by now almost legendary in web history, you’d be nuts to give that up.

  504. Nicola wrote on

    Strongly prefer system 1, it may convince me to switch over from chrome – it feels new and fresh. System 2? not so much, same old same old.

  505. Om wrote on

    I prefer the system 1 general purpose browser icons

  506. Randy Winston wrote on

    System 1 looks great!

  507. Michael wrote on

    I like system 1 most out of the 2 options but i prefer the current look compared to system 1 and 2

  508. Cameron Spear wrote on

    System 1. I *really* like the Fox “masterbrand” logo, and I think the icons overall look better and more cohesive.

    I like that the browser logos dropped the arm… I feel like it really modernizes it.

  509. Ondrej Nekola wrote on

    System 2 is much cleaner and I like it more.

  510. Giacomo wrote on

    SYSTEM 2

  511. D. Bowman wrote on

    Neither set impresses me, nor does the fact that this browser, with 1 tab open, is using over 1GB of memory as I write this.

  512. Dustin wrote on

    Personally system one has more of a simplistic and overall complete vibe. I would suggest removing the heavy blue block from the browser icons as I think the reason a lot of people have issue with them is they feel heavy. Every other icon has white space for breath ability except the browser. Also a few of the app icons such as the wheel don’t subscribe to the overlap aesthetic that all the other logo forms have, I would suggest modifying those as well.

  513. Diego wrote on

    System 2, look very good and innovative. Those in system 1 look similar to others.

  514. CC wrote on

    I definitely prefer System 1, no question!

  515. Louis wrote on

    System 2 looks better.

  516. dvlupr wrote on

    Nice work with System 1. Clean, updated, and consistent.

    System 2 seems a bit disjointed in look and feel.

  517. Stefan wrote on

    I think system 2’s masterbrand looks very similar to the old Ubisoft logo. I don’t like the swooshy fox tail either, it looks like a step backwards. I love the dynamic tail in the current Icon that is preserved in system 1. Overall I like system 1 better than system too as it feels more modern.

    I think masterbrand 2 is closer to the Ubisoft logo than masterbrand 1 is to the Gitlab logo.

  518. Boris wrote on

    For us, who crossed continents to attend the Firefox 1.0 release party, this logo have a deep meaning. It’s the banner we joined feeling it was the right thing to do, and truely Mozilla showed us we were right. It’s the icon I click on every days for nearly 20 years feeling it’s the right thing to do.

  519. noisys wrote on

    About the masterbrand icon.

    Old icon is cool! Not “Firefox Quantum Browser Icon”. “Firefox 3.5 Browser Icon” is best design!!

    I dislike System 1. The icons are not cutie and Hard to remember and eyes get tired.

    System 2 ’s design like Firefox so far. But the icons are too simple flat.

    I got tired of monotonous design(simple flat).
    Hope to return to the old design.

  520. Petr wrote on


  521. Mathieu wrote on

    The first system is well designed. I like change

  522. Vladislav wrote on

    I would also prefer group 1, with the browser icons from group 2.

  523. Martin de Boer wrote on

    I dont like the masterbrand icons. But #2 is already a lot better than #1, because you recognize it as Forefox. I like all of the new Firefox icons. But again #2 is better than #1, because there is more white space. I think the #1 icons are too much of the same thing. Large slabs of colors yellow, orange, red and purple. The icons of #2 are much more destinctive. However they do nothing to relate to the Firefox logos. They feel if they belong on a generic smartphone. All in all, #2 is defenately better.

  524. Jim wrote on

    I’m very conflicted by these design sets. In System 1, I greatly prefer the masterbrand icon and have a slight preference for the general purpose browser icons. I like that this masterbrand icon lets me see the “face” of the fox, and that the color choices also communicate the “fire” aspect of the branding. I find System 2’s masterbrand icon unappealing because it goes in the exact opposite direction, eliminating the head entirely and focusing only on the tail. To me that just doesn’t seem like an appropriate fit for that branding purpose.

    And the reason I prefer the System 1’s general purpose browser icons is that I feel they lose something when the center is empty, which is another thing I dislike about System 2’s masterbrand icon.

    But for the singularly-focused browser-icons and icons for new apps and services, System 2 looks significantly better to my eyes. The reason is that System 1’s variants are just too blocky and abstract, and other than the rocket, I don’t think I would ever naturally memorize which icon belongs to which app/service. The openness and variety of Systems 2’s variants is therefore more appealing, as I think it would be easier to learn to identify what each one belongs to.

  525. Kam wrote on

    I see a lot of comments critiquing the icons, or the masterbrands, rather than the design systems themselves, or comments just saying one is better than the other, so hopefully this helps. Here are my thoughts:

    System 1:
    I like how the system has a constructed feel, that pieces are being put together and accomplishing things that they couldn’t do individually. Looking at these pieces as the people and the products, I feel like that fits the idea of “Firefox” better than System 2 does. I also think that this design language of “constructing” the icons has good potential to grow.

    System 2:
    With this one, I prefer the aesthetic the negative space provides, it gives the system an overall look of clarity compared to System 1. Although, I don’t see much cohesion between the masterbrand/browser icons and the other icons. They seem to be from two completely different systems. That said, I think some regular iteration can easily solve that. Overall, I like the refreshing look of clarity, and the use of a main icon color to set them apart from each other.

    My final verdict here is that aesthetically I prefer system 2, but I like how system 1 represents the idea of Firefox better.

    Thanks for the open process! I appreciate the chance we’ve been given to share our opinions, and I hope mine was useful. Cheers!

  526. Dave wrote on

    I overall like the first set better. The second set doesn’t look like a single family, whereas System 1 has one cohesive look and feel. I also love the Fox from System 1. The browser icons from System 2 are somewhat better than those from 1.

  527. Johan wrote on

    System 1 is better !

  528. Romain wrote on


    I prefer System 1 icons set!

  529. Billy wrote on

    Where do we get the laptop stickers?

  530. Isabella wrote on


  531. Gianni wrote on

    Dear Icon Team

    Just remember that an icon is used to show on ONE glance what the app behind it is supposed to do. Many of the icons you use are just fancy doodles and no one know what they stand for. So don’t try to re-invent the wheel, stay true to your roots and don’t start anything that you have to change again in two years. That said, and from a designer’s point of view, System 2 is the one that is more customer-friendly and clear.

  532. Ksenia wrote on

    I like System 1 design

  533. garbledwords wrote on

    system 2, much more flowing.

  534. Jaime Linares wrote on


  535. Helder Santana wrote on

    I feel System 1 shapes far better than 2. Maybe a slight blue shade in this system could avoid confusion with Gitlab branding.

  536. Thomasso wrote on

    System 2 icons with System 1 masterbrand icon. Dont throw your history away, embrace it.

  537. Shelly wrote on


  538. Alexandre wrote on

    Hello, I like system 2.

  539. Former Fan wrote on

    Neither, please: they both have significant problems!

    1) option 1 has a “brand” icon, but all other icons are very different from it – not even matching the color scheme until after the product icons – and then they are too abstract and distracting to mean anything to anyone. Expect MANY other companies (or trolls) to make similar icons because they can and you cannot trademark… that.

    2) option 2 at least has similarity between the brand and product icons, and the other icons are distinguishable by color – but only a couple of them mean anything and could be easily identified by any viewer. Otherwise what do users ask for: the broken triple-circle icon??

  540. baza wrote on

    System 2 uniquely

  541. Mike wrote on

    Personally, I’d like to see logos/icons that accurately resemble a red panda than a fox, but that’s just the zookeeper in me.

  542. boB wrote on

    System 1 fox head + System 2 secondary icons. Very nice work overall.

  543. Vladimir wrote on

    I like the “System 1” option, it’s perfect.

  544. Josh wrote on

    Group 2 Master brand icon and browser icons. I don’t like either of the apps and services icons.

  545. Emily wrote on

    System 1!!

  546. John Reese wrote on

    Neither of those…

    system 2 is slighty “better”.

  547. PiBi wrote on


  548. Simon wrote on

    System 1 fo sho! Number 2 feels already outdated.

  549. Lee Comstock wrote on

    Definitely prefer group 2.

  550. Michael Klein wrote on

    My vote for system 2! Call me conservative but it just wouldn’t be Firefox without that round icon.

  551. Gerard wrote on

    Je préfère la version System 2 plus liée au standard Firefox.

  552. Mr. Owl wrote on

    I like the system 1.

  553. James W wrote on

    I like system 1 better, but I don’t necessarily like the master brand logo. The stylized ears look too much like a bow which detracts from the overall look of the system.

  554. Olly Killick wrote on

    System 1 without a doubt. No question.

  555. Prechtig wrote on

    I just want all icons for browsers to somehow involve a fox, I just don’t like the new singulary-focused browser icons. Furthermore, I think system 2 is the best.

  556. Louise Ormerod wrote on

    System 2 feels much more ‘firefox’, especially the icons. With the flowing gradients and the softer edges, I could recognise the brand from the icons alone.

    The first set is nice and fresh, however it feels too much like other brands wanting to ‘refresh’ their system by having much cleaner icons and graphics, but start to fall into the trap of stripping away their personality.

    System 2 feels stronger.

  557. Daniel wrote on

    System 1 all the way. Better colours and less Chrome similarities!

  558. Yasin YAMAN wrote on

    I liked System 2 due to its visuality and brand history.

  559. John L. wrote on

    The fox with the flaming tail IS the Firefox. You simply can’t eliminate the fire and you are losing a LOT of brand recognition if you lose the standard browser logo.

    Evolved as it has, it’s a powerful statement and is immediately recognized.

    The work put into marketing Open Source products is immeasurably important and you do not want to throw that away for the sake of change. I can’t emphasize this enough.

    Keep the fox and flame. Everything else can be altered to fit that motif, but for the love of gods don’t throw away so many years of brand building.

  560. zepar wrote on

    i dont like system 1 at all, and only the general brand and PC browser icons of the 2nd system, the design of all other icons from the 2nd system doesnt work with the first two at all

  561. Rammbock wrote on

    System 1

  562. M I wrote on

    System 2!

  563. Uarabei wrote on

    System 2 +

  564. PC Cobbler wrote on

    I like system-1 much better, except for the masterbrand which is rather ugly.

  565. Jon wrote on

    I prefer system 1.

  566. Hugo Brand wrote on

    Leave things as they are…

    Otherwise System 1…


  567. Michael Karpinski wrote on

    First of all, I really like the design of both systems! I will say objectively I like System 1 as a whole best, however as others have mentioned, I feel that the masterbrand icon is too similar to GitLab’s (abstract, geometric, orange, fox head). For that reason alone, I would say System 2 is the best choice. I’m excited to see what you end up deciding! :)

  568. Lachezar Petkov wrote on

    System 2

  569. Justin Strickland wrote on

    I like System 1 Masterbrand Icon. It still evokes the idea of FireFox, where System2 masterbrand icon loses the fox entirely and is mostly just a somewhat familiar swoosh but mostly misses the mark with me.

    I’d really like to see System2’s general browser icons with the implied globe in them. The way the front paw is extended makes it look like the fox could be running around the globe, an indicator of its speed, or cradling the earth making it appear to be fostering the web, something I find synonymous with Mozilla.

    For the remainder of the icons, I’m finding system 2 much more preferable. They give themselves space to breath and let the eye pick up on details, and the separate colors make them more quickly recognizable. System 1 specific and new app icons are all a bit too chunky so I can’t pick out the details and only the ones that are fairly obvious really create any connection for me, the rocket for instance.

    To sum up: Masterbrand 1

    Everything else: System 2

  570. Jan Michałowicz wrote on

    If you really decide to kill oryginal Fox (I like this logo very much) I prefer System 2 as more traditional. System 1 can be used to represent almost everything meaning it is to geometrical and no-Firefox specific

  571. Bernardo wrote on

    The #1 for master brand is better, since it shows the “M” and the fox, which means Mozilla is more than Firefox, but is still Firefox’s company, while the second one only “firefox company, nothing else”.

    As for the icons, while #1 is adorable, the #2 are more easy to be distinguished and follow a design different than most apps. I liked a lot the change in color and shape between icons while keeping them simple.

    TD;DR: master icon 1 with other icons 2.

  572. Angel wrote on

    I much prefer the look of the System 1 icons!

  573. Iykury wrote on

    I like system 2 for the masterbrand icon. I think the General-purpose browser icons should be the system 2 icons, with the blue sphere in the background like the current logo. Also, I think system 1 looks better for the singularly-focused browsers and the new apps and services.

  574. Cam wrote on

    Changing the brand logo is a big step. The danger is losing its distinct appearance to a sea of logos that look very like other brands and like each other. I have a preference for System 2 but really would prefer something bolder.

  575. dtulyakov wrote on


  576. Nor wrote on

    I love the system 1 icons!!

  577. Catherine Desrochers wrote on

    Why not the First one with the spinning Fox logo from the second one?

  578. j Gregor wrote on

    Totally with Tyler on this one.

  579. MozUser wrote on

    I like simplicity of the System 2, less sharp edges, less colors

  580. Peter Ekstrand wrote on

    The system 1 master logo, but with system 2 icons look the best.

  581. Ahmed khatab wrote on

    I like system 2

  582. Derek wrote on

    I’m not a fan of the system 1 master logo. At first glance, it reminds me of some sort of email logo. If I stare long enough I can see the fox head but it’s not obvious right away. The system 2 master logo does feel more of an evolution from the current logo. Definitely system 2 general purpose browser icons. System 1 singularly focused browser icons and system 1 icons for apps and services.

  583. Mike Lis wrote on

    I think System 1 is more “fashionable” and in line with popular styles, but I worry that there’s not enough detail to the designs to differentiate them from other products. System 2 has the reverse issue. The icons don’t match the look of any of the modern operating systems (Android, iOS/Mac, or Windows), but they also look distinctive in a way that you will *know* they belong to Mozilla.

    I think it’s a question of what you’re trying to do. Do you want Mozilla apps to blend seamlessly into their environment, or stand out as a unified brand?

  584. Richard Becker wrote on

    I think system one looks sleeker and more attractive! Also I think the system 1 icons can represent more than the circle-based one’s in system 2.

  585. Kenny Heimbuch wrote on

    The top icon under the “System 1 masterbrand icon” set is pure genius. Whoever came up with this deserves a big raise :)

  586. Britta wrote on

    SYSTEM 1.

  587. Jim H wrote on

    I prefer System 2 because 1.) the browser icons of it are more recognizable as “Firefox” and 2.) The non-browser / future family icons differentiate clearly and are likely to remain recognizable as they are scaled on various screens.

  588. mariona wrote on

    system 1

  589. Vlad Norton wrote on

    I hope creators will choose first system because:

    — it’s more flexible
    — it has modern and cool style like instagram’s design for example
    — it more compatible inside system than the second
    — it has different and unique shapes
    — it has more organic color gamut and more fits for smth awesome!!! Guys just look at this, I guess, it’s completely reflects the essence of MOZILLA in magnificent modern rendering.


  590. Victor wrote on

    I love both! but I’d go with System 2 :-)

  591. Alex wrote on

    System 1 looks beautiful when large. System 2’s twisting 3D shapes tax my mind. But System 1 icons all look the same when they’re very small. Also, I think the Earth in System 1 browser icons is too dark and purple.

  592. Drupal wrote on

    Definitely prefer system 1, the logos resemble more each other.

  593. H young wrote on

    System 1. Nice job! … from one designer to another. :)

  594. Isaac wrote on

    Love the look of System 1! But prefer System 2’s icons

  595. anon wrote on

    System 2 FTW

  596. MegO_Bonus wrote on

    Vote for system 2

  597. Milos wrote on

    The logo should in my opinion still show a fix wrapped around the planet and it should be obvious that that’s the case. In one of the designs the planet is missing and in the other it’s just a patch of blue. If I never saw a proper Firefox logo before, I wouldn’t have gotten it.

    Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

  598. Matthew Sanabria wrote on

    System 1 all the way for me. The icons for the browser in system 2 are too round. The rest of the icons in system 2 look like Instagram styled icons. The icons in system 1 give me more of a Firefox and Mozilla feel. I would suggest working on the master icon since it rivals that of GitLab.

  599. wickux wrote on

    I like the common color palette idea in System 1 but I think System 2 icons are more readable. I would drop purple from the common palette and use it only in icons directly related to privacy (e.g. Private Browsing, Firefox Focus)

  600. James wrote on

    Definitely prefer the masterbrand Icon of System 2, but I feel like the other icons for System 1 are relatively more clear… though both are somewhat ambiguous without explanation.

  601. I StM I wrote on

    Hey Firefox design team
    I think you should go for a mix of both systems, as follows: system 2 for the masterbrand and general icons, and 1 for the other icon sets.
    System 1’s masterbrand icon feels less Firefox-like, because the symbol of a fox shaped as a circle and composed of his head and tail delivers a strong and recognisable identity Firefox acquired over time. Plus, general icons seem very messy, with the fox’s head mixing with his tail, and very unbalanced. In opposition, s2 icons are cleaner and nearer to the brand.
    However, I would go for system 1 for the other icons. In addition of having a more cohesive and fire-like color palette, the outlined icons of system 2 feel weaker and could look too much like Material Theming outline icon set (not sure about that though).
    They also look less cohesive because of the color palette going from hot to cold colors.

    Here’s my opinion as a graphic designer 😁

  602. Karen Florup wrote on

    I prefer system 1 overall since it keeps the fox identity for the main logo. The fox is lost on sysstem 2.

  603. Javier wrote on

    Sistem 1 with icons group 2

  604. Tom wrote on

    I’m totally happy with shapeless designs. The icons from System 1 are contemporary and great!

  605. Redoliver wrote on

    Love the masterbrand in system 1 but prefer all the other icons in system 2. You can’t really tell what they are in system 1.

  606. Trevin wrote on

    I personally really like system 1, the master logo just makes more sense to me.

  607. Greg B wrote on

    I much prefer System 2 icons

  608. Jesse wrote on

    I’d go with system 2.
    I like the evolution of the classic Firefox icon and I think it is still instantly recognizable. I agree with other and think system 1’s master brand logo is confusingly close to GitLab’s logo.

  609. Edgar Garcia wrote on

    I think System 1 is better than 2. The fox’s face is your logo guys, don’t lose that :)

  610. cesar daniel vega wrote on

    Yo Creo que para que firefox tenga mas usuarios el Logo es MUY IMPORTANTE!!!!! y estan Fallando en los Colores del Logo no en el lopgo en si. No son modernos (los colores) porque son los mismos de hacemucho tiempo y la mente lo asocia a algo no nuevo sino viejo El mismo firefox de sus comienzos porque dan aire viejo y no nuevo. Lo que esta fallando es esto porque he hecho preguntas a muchos usuarios y he preguntado una muy sencilla ¿que colores le pondrias a Mozilla Firefox en su Logo para que te llame a usarlo? y la respuesta basicamente mas relevantes fueron
    le pondrai colores mas Modernos y futuristas Como un estilo DARK oscuro, Negro con detalles anaranjados, o simplemente todo Negro Brillante con detalles en lila, Algo mas Futurista, en sintesis: ” Yo en mi Humilde Opinion” por lo que creo que va a llamar la atencion es cambiar de los Naranjs fuerted a logos donde prepondere mas los colores Dark, oscuros con algo de otro color que le de un Aire futurista.!!!”. Espero que tengan en Cuenta mi opinion. A la imagen que agregue le pondria mas Dark (la imagen es un simple ejemplo de lo que llama la atencion ) poro si quieren ma avisan y les por¡dria hacer un diseño mas como lo que pienso porque no tube de a¡hacer un ejemplo propio, esta que mande la tomé de internet. Gracias y un Saludo!!!

  611. Mariano wrote on

    System 1, without a doubt!

  612. Navharsh Kr wrote on

    System 2

  613. Beaver Fever