I think you meant "subjectively" - if it were objectively better then you could surely provide some evidence!

I for one like the new logo - it's less staid, a bit more playful, and more indicative of Mozilla than the previous one (which was just the name rendered in some font). But that's a subjective opinion, and I'm not going to pretend there's an objective truth to it.

Why is a graphic of a dinosaur objectively better?

I starter living the dinosaur a bit more when I learned about its history

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-hi...

Pro-tip: don't click on this link. Instead, copy the URL and paste it into location bar.

Honestly, @dang, can we enforce that all links to jwz go through archive.org? Then everyone could see the content, jwz wouldn’t get the unwanted traffic, and people wouldn’t have to deal with "why did you just have a NSFW image open at work"

Would anybody mind to share the background story on this?

Now there’s a good story.

I should clarify, the logotype “mozilla” and not necessarily the dino logomark. The original is more legible, less cryptic.

They also based their new typeface Fira Sans off that original logotype, which is what they use to brand Firefox. So they also fragment that brand association.

Because they went extinct, duh!

Wait a minute...

This applies to more than just logos. So much design, when turned into a public matter, suffers.