How will it create confusion? Nobody types moz:// in regular usage, so this only effects you if you are specifically looking for an easter egg or something.

I didn't think to type moz:// but I'm starting to read "moz" instead of "mozilla" now.

The guys from moz.com will be happy about that.

Same here, although perhaps that's because for some unknown reason internally I've always said dot-dot-slash-slash for :// so it's odd trying to read it as 'ill'. I don't expect the protocol logo will appear in print form in text very often though so it's not an issue.

You don't think at the very least older people will see Moz://a and try to type that into the browser's address bar?

Also, Moz.com should expect a huge increase in its revenues soon. I imagine they already have the celebration party planned for the weekend.

I don't think older people know/care about Mozilla. Hell these days I'm not sure younger people do either, unfortunately.

In other words, how does this logo help to generate interest in the company Mozilla, then?

If the goal wasn't to generate interest in the company, what was the goal?

> Also, Moz.com should expect a huge increase in its revenues soon.

How so? People "savvy" enough to type "moz://a" on a search bar aren't the same type of people interested in the services of a SEO company.

The opposite might well be true: people believing seo is a real thing tend to be the unsavvy ones.

Moz.com should throw a party.

It does tend to bork the unified search bar.

In the comments, JR Conlin:

"REALLY ought to register "moz" with IANA as well. Otherwise it might pop up as a "real" protocol declaration in the future and we might have a conflict. We can just reserve the prefix so that it's not available for general use. "

But it's just marketing. Marketing "decisions" change all the time, and the approaches are discarded forever.

And we all have one more technical debt.

Let the marketoids do what they do, just keep them as away as possible.

I don't think people will care too much. It's not like Firefox is changing name or something.

Indeed. And on the code side, implementing this gimmick involves 115 lines of new code across 9 files.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/105654/diff/1#index_header

Half of those changes are actually just tests that it works correctly The first three files are the only ones that are doing any useful work, and then the last one makes sure that it works in anything other than a local build.

1 LOC is 1 LOC to be maintained, be it test or otherwise.

Sunk cost fallacy in action right from the start.

This is why you always have a disclaimer allowing editorial discretion when doing anything crowd based.