I disagree on a couple of points. The idea that it takes armies of people to develop a web browser or that the Firefox's technology would be less relevant becau

I disagree on a couple of points. The idea that it takes armies of people to develop a web browser or that the Firefox's technology would be less relevant because of the existence of alternatives like WebKit. WebKit had its beginnings by being borrowed from Konqueror, an open-source and little used web browse for Linux. That really underscores both how it's possible to develop a quality web browser with fewer resources and that having independent technology is useful. Safari wouldn't have been able to leap frog some other browsers if they weren't able to use WebKit to do it. And I think most readers of this site know that it is important that web technology doesn't become a monoculture. Whether or not Mozilla can secure independent funding without Google, whether they are "viable" or "relevant". I think those questions are a distraction. The real question is, what is Mozilla's mission? Because if they aren't fulfilling the mission, those other factors are irrelevant. And it's clearly possible for them to do something useful in the browser realm even with 0 resources if they had to fall back on community contributions and be a project like Konqueror.