I think a lot of people in this thread have missed the point a little. Money isn't everything, and the branding is absolutely doing its job correctly here.

When advertising, you don't just tailor your branding to the customers, but to the customers you want to have.

If you want to have lots of locals visit your restaurant, you post your ad in the local newspaper. This specifically excludes out of towners, and makes sure that everyone that visits is very likely a local, or someone who actually pays attention to local events.

I think my favorite example was a wedding contractor one of my siblings hired. They used to have a genericly professional "wedding hair" type of name, but then they switched to an innuendo name instead. Before the switch, they got every bridezilla out there. After the switch all of their customers were a shitload more chill about things, with the bonus of usually having very similar styles of humor as the contractor did. She was a lot of fun to be around when everybody was getting ready, and all it took was changing her company name to something "unprofessional" to filter out most all of the bad customers.

If you want to exclude people who hate furries, might be transphobic, or otherwise problematic, you add a furry logo to your hobby project and make it very obvious what it is.

Having your branding and advertising filter out the idiots who hate furries is a feature, not a bug.

Thinking something is unprofessional and less likely to be reliable because it uses memes and shit has nothing to do with hating those things, though.

You can enjoy those things and still not trust your website/business security to software that uses it as it’s public face.

THAT is what’s being missed in this thread.

Like would you give a second glance at choosing something like UwU.jajaja.lol or whatever for your antivirus? It puts out “we don’t take this seriously” vibes and that translates to “you shouldn’t take us seriously either”, which doesn’t mech well with a serious software function.

It’s a tone mismatch. What Might be fine for a shopping list/fitness tracker/rss feed aggregator might not for a finance app or cyber security

Like would you give a second glance at choosing something like UwU.jajaja.lol or whatever for your antivirus? It puts out "we don't take this seriously" vibes and that translates to "you shouldn't take us seriously either", which doesn't mech well with a serious software function.

Yes. Currently my office uses a tool called "keep ass" as the primary password database management tool.

If a company can't look past a cartoon mascot, it is best, for the developer of the tool, that company never actually uses the tool in the first place.

You can stop a lot of assholes at the door by putting a rainbow by the door handle. This is the same, and it's working as intended.

Again, nothing to do with assholes.

And the P is capitalized, so the software is not presenting itself as keep ass. Would your company use that software if it actually was? With a cartoon butt as the logo, not a key?

And the P is capitalized, so the software is not presenting itself as keep ass.

It's not called KeyPass either though. They did KeePass on purpose, and everybody uses it anyways.

Would your company use that software if it actually was? With a cartoon butt as the logo, not a key?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't live in that world, so I don't know. My previous employer used it too. It's kinda the standard for password management, just like anubis is. (which has a normal name and silly logo, as opposed to keepass which has a silly name and normal logo).

A butt is not the same as an animal person at all. The fact that you compared a cartoon mascot like Anubis' to a cartoon butt says more about you than it does this conversation. Cartoon animal people as mascots is older than the internet by a mile.

You brought up butts. My point with going to an extreme with that is even you can agree there is a line somewhere where something shifts over the line of “too ridiculous to consider for serious purposes”.

You not understanding that, and trying to reframe my argument as equating mascots to butts, says a lot about you. It’s also less of a logo and more on the standard of a generic social media profile picture that I’m no way relates to the product.

You brought up butts.

No I didn't. You did. It's right above my comment. Don't lie. Everybody can see you mentioning butts first.

My point with going to an extreme with that is even you can agree there is a line somewhere where something shifts over the line of "too ridiculous to consider for serious purposes".

And my point is that "too ridiculous to consider for serious purposes" being the current state of things is wrong and needs to change to allow for less serious things to exist.

There is a conflict here. There are at least three options to resolve it. Either the company needs to change, anubis needs to change, or the users complaining about the other two groups need to change.

I'm arguing that the company is wrong for not changing. I'm also arguing that the user is wrong for complaining about anubis' branding. Hell, I'm even arguing that anubis is right for choosing to skip out on mainstream branding.

My point with going to an extreme with that is even you can agree there is a line somewhere where something shifts over the line of "too ridiculous to consider for serious purposes".

In short, I'm saying that anubis is nowhere near crossing that line.