8 ms·

Mozilla’s reliance on Google is increasing: 90% of 2012 revenue

99 points by hackhackhack 13y ago

pearjuice 13y ago
This isn't about Google playing the good guy. Their core business heavily relies on big, personalized data. By giving all that money to Mozilla, they claim the default search engine and probably some other man-in-the-middle services too (like Google error pages or Google anti-malware protection). I haven't used Firefox for a while, but I guess that also includes auto completion in the navigation bar like Chromium. It is only logical for them to invest in spots they can gain this data from.
ebbv 13y ago
If I were at Mozilla my #1 priority would be fixing this situation. Google has been less and less "not evil" lately, and this is not a position that I'd feel comfortable in long term. Alternative revenue models are needed. Unfortunately, reducing costs is probably also necessary.
- Touche 13y ago
  As long as Firefox has good marketshare Google will want to be its default search engine.
  - ep103 13y ago
    And if they ever don't, Microsoft would love the opportunity to take that market.
- untog 13y ago
  Alternative revenue models are needed. Their current revenue model isn't "Google", it's "the search box on Firefox". Now, you can debate whether it is sensible to rely on the search box, but it isn't tied to Google. Microsoft or Yahoo would probably love to get there instead.
  - johansch 13y ago
    But would Firefox users tolerate that?
k__ 13y ago
How come that no other company wants to pay Mozilla? There are many out there who use their products on a daily basis.
- Touche 13y ago
  I bet they get solicited all the time but there aren't many ways to make money on a web browser without ruining the user experience.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You could just sell a copy, but hey I guess I'm old fashioned thinking selling a product in exchange for money is better than selling eyeballs to advertisers.
    - Touche 13y ago
      You are old fashioned, even commercial browsers abandoned that strategy years ago.
      - mjn 13y ago
        Out of curiosity, has anyone tried that strategy with any success post-Opera? They're the last I remember to sell significant numbers of copies of a browser. Depending on how you count, that ended in either 2000 (when they introduced a free ad-supported version, though you could still pay for a registered, ad-free version), or 2005 (when the paid version was phased out entirely).
        iSnow 13y ago
        I guess iCab is the last one still trying (as shareware): http://icab.de/ http://icab.de/
    - JetSpiegel 13y ago
      It's pretty hard to that and keep the project open-source. If you don't keep it open-source, the amount of bugs to fix will overwhelm you and it will be just a failure.
Zigurd 13y ago
To declare a crisis before Mozilla properly launches their mobile OS is premature.
saosebastiao 13y ago
I'm so sick of this argument about Mozilla. It is like saying a Principal Engineer at Microsoft relies on Microsof because it provides 90% of his income. Last time Mozilla's contract was up for negotiation, they caused bidding war that increased their value over the previous contract...it wasn't Google's generosity. You are a fool if you think Mozilla is beholden to Google.
- gagege 13y ago
  Or just ignorant, like me. Thanks for the info.
- shooper 13y ago
  I think a better argument is that Mozilla needs to diversify its revenue sources. Chrome is taking away marketshare from Firefox thanks to advertising and paying a lot to be bundled with Java, Flash, Acrobat etc. updates or just being shipped as default by the PC OEMs. It makes sense for Google because then they needn't pay out so much to Mozilla. For many non tech folks where I had replaced IE with Firefox, I now see them using Chrome, and when I asked if they installed it, they usually have no idea how it got on their computer. This is a real danger that Firefox and Mozilla face. Not sure what's the state now but a few years ago the CEO was being paid ~400K/yr to run Mozilla Corp. For that kind of money, one would expect that Mozilla would have more diverse revenue than being a one-trick pony.
  - Touche 13y ago
    I wish I could find a "market share over time" chart but I can't. Anyways, IIRC I don't believe Chrome is still taking (much) aware from Firefox. They did for a long time but then flattened. Recently Chrome has dipped a little and Firefox is up: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/01/ie11-takes-1-49-market-share-firefox-gains-bit-chrome-hits-27-month-low/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/01/ie11-takes-1-49-mar...
    - deelowe 13y ago
      Does this count? http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/
themodelplumber 13y ago
One of the key "all is well" arguments here seems to be that Google could lose a significant chunk of search/ad market share by losing Firefox to Bing. Are there any "danger, danger" arguments that directly address the amount Google spends on Firefox in relation to the market share it gains in return? This TNW article seems keen to point out that Firefox is wearing a shiny pair of handcuffs, but conveniently leaves out the other half of the equation.
abhididdigi 13y ago
I am surprised by this. Mozilla is literally pumping out good open source software and no other company except Google is backing them?
- untog 13y ago
  Two points: Mozilla is pumping out mostly user facing open source software, which will probably attract less money than, say, Red Hat. Also, it's not that no company except Google is backing them. It's that they get a huge amount of money from their search box - currently paid by Google. Microsoft might well be happy to become the default and pay just as much.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Mozilla works on some services too.
    - 3825 13y ago
      For instance, Mozilla Persona is a simple sign-in solution for the web. Learn more at https://www.mozilla.org/persona/ https://www.mozilla.org/persona/ Edit 3: Fixed link for international readers
    - untog 13y ago
      Oh, for sure. That's why I said "mostly". But the majority mindshare/publicity is for their user-facing stuff.
  - huxley 13y ago
    Microsoft wasn't interested in paying anything near that much, nor was Yahoo, that's why talks collapsed during the negotiations. Google does consider the search engine placement valuable but it is probably also funding Mozilla as a hedge against anti-trust lawsuits.
    - eigenvalue 13y ago
      That's probably because it's not worth nearly as much to MS or Yahoo. I'm sure a non-trivial percentage of users would change the default search away from Bing.
manishsharan 13y ago
what other options exist for funding this organization ? If I were to brainstorm, I would recommend that Mozilla folks start go after enterprise market; almost every bank I have consulted for uses awful and poorly made GUI application using Swing or C# and most are struggling with Mobile. Since Mozilla is crossplatform and secure , I do think there is opportunity to offer training and support for customizing and hardening Firefox for enterprise business applications.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Going after the enterprise market wouldn't earn Mozilla any tangible amount of revenue.
  - manishsharan 13y ago
    I do not understand your remark : enterprise market is traditionally viewed as very lucrative. RedHat, Jboss , SpringFramework folks are doing remarkably well in the enterprise market though they had roots in free and opensource software movement.
    - wmf 13y ago
      Browsers are a unique market. IE is free and most enterprises would prefer to use it anyway. Mozilla would have to pay most enterprises to switch to Firefox.
- judk 13y ago
  It had been so man years that modern browser technology can probably easily emulate the ActiveX/ie6/winforms or whatever crap those enterprises run.
27182818284 13y ago
This feels like mud raking a controversy. I can't think of a situation where Google seriously Twisted Mozilla's arm using their financial backing as muscle.
wnevets 13y ago
You mean like how iOS was reliant on google for its default search?
- anon1385 13y ago
  Are you really seriously suggesting that income from iOS search was remotely significant to Apple's bottom line?
  - wnevets 13y ago
    Why does that matter? They switched to bing, do you honestly think microsoft is paying less than google to be the default search for iOS?
  - sp332 13y ago
    wnevets' comment didn't mention money.
- huxley 13y ago
  Except for how Apple doesn't get in excess of 90% of their income from Google.
  - wnevets 13y ago
    Why does the percent of income matter? Whether its 1% or 100% Microsoft had zero problem paying to take Google's place as the default search.
    - huxley 13y ago
      The contrast between Mozilla and Apple is that one needs the money and the other one doesn't, and that makes all the difference. Apple can pick and choose their deals. If Apple decided to give Microsoft the search box for free to spite Google they could do it in a second. Mozilla is completely dependent on monetizing the search box. I think at $100 million per year, Microsoft was interested in bidding for Mozilla's search box. At $300 million, it was untenable.
jstalin 13y ago
Mozilla looks like they're hedging their bets. Looking at the balance sheet shows that they are sitting on $240 million in cash at the end of 2012, up from $170 million in 2011. They could weather a couple of years with no Google revenue. https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...
mrweasel 13y ago
Building a browser is pretty complex, but on the other hand, the OpenBSD developers are building an operating system without funding from anyone but their users. I wonder if Mozilla could survive solely on funds from their users or if it's two different worlds.
- owenmarshall 13y ago
  It's important to remember that the Mozilla Foundation does more than just Firefox -- Thunderbird, Firefox OS, Mozilla Labs, Mozilla Research, etc. all get a slice of the pie. So while Firefox would likely survive, it'd imagine it would look much more like the post-Netscape, pre-MFL years. No more work on stuff like Rust, Servo, asm.js, things like Thunderbird would atrophy... That said, I'm not sold on Mozilla needing Google; I'm sure they could swing a deal with Bing. What strange bedfellows that'd make.
  - taopao 13y ago
    I would like to think they'd annihilate each other like antimatter and antimatter. Microsoft tried to smother OSS on many occasions, both directly, through FUD, and by proxy (SCO). Embrace extend extinguish. Steamrolling Windows-only solutions over standards. They just killed patent reform efforts. It just seems like they embody the opposite of Mozilla organization's ideals.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kibwen 13y ago
Mozilla acknowledges this as such in their annual financial reports (and has for a while now): "Concentrations of Risk: Mozilla entered into a contract with a search engine provider for royalties which expires November 2014. The previous contract term expired in November 2011. Approximately 90% and 85% of royalty revenue for 2012 and 2011, respectively, was derived from this contract. The receivable from this search engine provider represented 69% and 77% of the December 31, 2012 and 2011 outstanding receivables, respectively." I wouldn't worry too much about it. The fact that Google was forced to up its bid during the last round of contract negotiations means that Mozilla's value to Google has only increased, despite Chrome's presence on the browser scene.
guiomie 13y ago
Whats with the huge loss in forex ?
tvanantwerp 13y ago
A lot of folks here are suggesting that Google's status as a primary source of revenue for Mozilla does NOT leave Mozilla beholden to Google's wishes. Without arguing if this is true or not, I'd like to ask a follow-up: are nonprofit/political organizations that receive substantial support from the Koch brothers also NOT beholden to the Koch brothers? Why or why not?
zimbatm 13y ago
Where is the evidence that the revenue is coming from Google ? If you look at the actual report[1], Google is never mentioned. From that all we can conclude is that Mozilla has made more revenue on Royalties. Mozilla has diversified it's income stream with FirefoxOS and it's entry into the mobile market. Couldn't some of the royalties come from Telephonica and other mobile operators ? [1]: https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  "Concentrations of Risk: Mozilla entered into a contract with a search engine provider for royalties which expires November 2014. The previous contract term expired in November 2011. Approximately 90% and 85% of royalty revenue for 2012 and 2011, respectively, was derived from this contract. The receivable from this search engine provider represented 69% and 77% of the December 31, 2012 and 2011 outstanding receivables, respectively."
hojoff79 13y ago
The sentiment below is correct, there should not be a real concern here for Mozilla. Here's how you should think about it from a business perspective. Most (but not all) companies should be concerned about their bargaining power with customers when revenue is highly concentrated. This concern comes from the fact that customers can threaten to leave, which will significantly decrease revenue and be difficult to replace. Consequently, many companies will lower prices under the logic that retaining 90% of that revenue is better than the results from trying to replace it with smaller revenue opportunities. However, this is far from the case for Mozilla. Google pays Mozilla in order to be the DEFAULT search engine (which is valuable on the theory of consumer inertia). The default position is a limited commodity; there is only one default position and, therefore, by doing business with Google they are passing on other business. If Google left then Mozilla would be able to sell that default position to someone else (probably Yahoo or Microsoft) and would be able to replace most of that revenue with comparable revenue very quickly. I would argue Google is in the more difficult position here. Google has a some (not a lot) concentration of their acquired traffic from Mozilla (I think ~10%), and that is not a limited commodity. If there were other comparable traffic acquisition opportunities available, Google would pursue them. Google is not necessarily passing on other business because of their business with Mozilla (while, as explained above, Mozilla is passing on other business because of their Google deal). So presumably if Mozilla and Google part ways, that Google business (revenue, profit etc.) would be lost (at least for now) and take some time / effort to replace. While Mozilla’s power over Google is definitely small, I would say with certainty Mozilla should not be concerned about their Google concentration in this scenario.

99 points by hackhackhack 13y ago

This isn't about Google playing the good guy. Their core business heavily relies on big, personalized data. By giving all that money to Mozilla, they claim the default search engine and probably some other man-in-the-middle services too (like Google error pages or Google anti-malware protection). I haven't used Firefox for a while, but I guess that also includes auto completion in the navigation bar like Chromium. It is only logical for them to invest in spots they can gain this data from.

ebbv 13y ago

If I were at Mozilla my #1 priority would be fixing this situation. Google has been less and less "not evil" lately, and this is not a position that I'd feel comfortable in long term. Alternative revenue models are needed. Unfortunately, reducing costs is probably also necessary.

Touche 13y ago
As long as Firefox has good marketshare Google will want to be its default search engine.
- ep103 13y ago
  And if they ever don't, Microsoft would love the opportunity to take that market.
untog 13y ago
Alternative revenue models are needed. Their current revenue model isn't "Google", it's "the search box on Firefox". Now, you can debate whether it is sensible to rely on the search box, but it isn't tied to Google. Microsoft or Yahoo would probably love to get there instead.
- johansch 13y ago
  But would Firefox users tolerate that?

k__ 13y ago

How come that no other company wants to pay Mozilla? There are many out there who use their products on a daily basis.

Touche 13y ago
I bet they get solicited all the time but there aren't many ways to make money on a web browser without ruining the user experience.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You could just sell a copy, but hey I guess I'm old fashioned thinking selling a product in exchange for money is better than selling eyeballs to advertisers.
  - Touche 13y ago
    You are old fashioned, even commercial browsers abandoned that strategy years ago.
    - mjn 13y ago
      Out of curiosity, has anyone tried that strategy with any success post-Opera? They're the last I remember to sell significant numbers of copies of a browser. Depending on how you count, that ended in either 2000 (when they introduced a free ad-supported version, though you could still pay for a registered, ad-free version), or 2005 (when the paid version was phased out entirely).
      - iSnow 13y ago
        I guess iCab is the last one still trying (as shareware): http://icab.de/ http://icab.de/
  - JetSpiegel 13y ago
    It's pretty hard to that and keep the project open-source. If you don't keep it open-source, the amount of bugs to fix will overwhelm you and it will be just a failure.

Zigurd 13y ago

To declare a crisis before Mozilla properly launches their mobile OS is premature.

saosebastiao 13y ago

I'm so sick of this argument about Mozilla. It is like saying a Principal Engineer at Microsoft relies on Microsof because it provides 90% of his income. Last time Mozilla's contract was up for negotiation, they caused bidding war that increased their value over the previous contract...it wasn't Google's generosity. You are a fool if you think Mozilla is beholden to Google.

gagege 13y ago
Or just ignorant, like me. Thanks for the info.
shooper 13y ago
I think a better argument is that Mozilla needs to diversify its revenue sources. Chrome is taking away marketshare from Firefox thanks to advertising and paying a lot to be bundled with Java, Flash, Acrobat etc. updates or just being shipped as default by the PC OEMs. It makes sense for Google because then they needn't pay out so much to Mozilla. For many non tech folks where I had replaced IE with Firefox, I now see them using Chrome, and when I asked if they installed it, they usually have no idea how it got on their computer. This is a real danger that Firefox and Mozilla face. Not sure what's the state now but a few years ago the CEO was being paid ~400K/yr to run Mozilla Corp. For that kind of money, one would expect that Mozilla would have more diverse revenue than being a one-trick pony.
- Touche 13y ago
  I wish I could find a "market share over time" chart but I can't. Anyways, IIRC I don't believe Chrome is still taking (much) aware from Firefox. They did for a long time but then flattened. Recently Chrome has dipped a little and Firefox is up: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/01/ie11-takes-1-49-market-share-firefox-gains-bit-chrome-hits-27-month-low/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/01/ie11-takes-1-49-mar...
  - deelowe 13y ago
    Does this count? http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/

themodelplumber 13y ago

One of the key "all is well" arguments here seems to be that Google could lose a significant chunk of search/ad market share by losing Firefox to Bing. Are there any "danger, danger" arguments that directly address the amount Google spends on Firefox in relation to the market share it gains in return? This TNW article seems keen to point out that Firefox is wearing a shiny pair of handcuffs, but conveniently leaves out the other half of the equation.

abhididdigi 13y ago

I am surprised by this. Mozilla is literally pumping out good open source software and no other company except Google is backing them?

untog 13y ago
Two points: Mozilla is pumping out mostly user facing open source software, which will probably attract less money than, say, Red Hat. Also, it's not that no company except Google is backing them. It's that they get a huge amount of money from their search box - currently paid by Google. Microsoft might well be happy to become the default and pay just as much.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Mozilla works on some services too.
  - 3825 13y ago
    For instance, Mozilla Persona is a simple sign-in solution for the web. Learn more at https://www.mozilla.org/persona/ https://www.mozilla.org/persona/ Edit 3: Fixed link for international readers
  - untog 13y ago
    Oh, for sure. That's why I said "mostly". But the majority mindshare/publicity is for their user-facing stuff.
- huxley 13y ago
  Microsoft wasn't interested in paying anything near that much, nor was Yahoo, that's why talks collapsed during the negotiations. Google does consider the search engine placement valuable but it is probably also funding Mozilla as a hedge against anti-trust lawsuits.
  - eigenvalue 13y ago
    That's probably because it's not worth nearly as much to MS or Yahoo. I'm sure a non-trivial percentage of users would change the default search away from Bing.

manishsharan 13y ago

what other options exist for funding this organization ? If I were to brainstorm, I would recommend that Mozilla folks start go after enterprise market; almost every bank I have consulted for uses awful and poorly made GUI application using Swing or C# and most are struggling with Mobile. Since Mozilla is crossplatform and secure , I do think there is opportunity to offer training and support for customizing and hardening Firefox for enterprise business applications.

kevingadd 13y ago
Going after the enterprise market wouldn't earn Mozilla any tangible amount of revenue.
- manishsharan 13y ago
  I do not understand your remark : enterprise market is traditionally viewed as very lucrative. RedHat, Jboss , SpringFramework folks are doing remarkably well in the enterprise market though they had roots in free and opensource software movement.
  - wmf 13y ago
    Browsers are a unique market. IE is free and most enterprises would prefer to use it anyway. Mozilla would have to pay most enterprises to switch to Firefox.
judk 13y ago
It had been so man years that modern browser technology can probably easily emulate the ActiveX/ie6/winforms or whatever crap those enterprises run.

27182818284 13y ago

This feels like mud raking a controversy. I can't think of a situation where Google seriously Twisted Mozilla's arm using their financial backing as muscle.

wnevets 13y ago

You mean like how iOS was reliant on google for its default search?

anon1385 13y ago
Are you really seriously suggesting that income from iOS search was remotely significant to Apple's bottom line?
- wnevets 13y ago
  Why does that matter? They switched to bing, do you honestly think microsoft is paying less than google to be the default search for iOS?
- sp332 13y ago
  wnevets' comment didn't mention money.
huxley 13y ago
Except for how Apple doesn't get in excess of 90% of their income from Google.
- wnevets 13y ago
  Why does the percent of income matter? Whether its 1% or 100% Microsoft had zero problem paying to take Google's place as the default search.
  - huxley 13y ago
    The contrast between Mozilla and Apple is that one needs the money and the other one doesn't, and that makes all the difference. Apple can pick and choose their deals. If Apple decided to give Microsoft the search box for free to spite Google they could do it in a second. Mozilla is completely dependent on monetizing the search box. I think at $100 million per year, Microsoft was interested in bidding for Mozilla's search box. At $300 million, it was untenable.

jstalin 13y ago

Mozilla looks like they're hedging their bets. Looking at the balance sheet shows that they are sitting on $240 million in cash at the end of 2012, up from $170 million in 2011. They could weather a couple of years with no Google revenue. https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...

mrweasel 13y ago

Building a browser is pretty complex, but on the other hand, the OpenBSD developers are building an operating system without funding from anyone but their users. I wonder if Mozilla could survive solely on funds from their users or if it's two different worlds.

owenmarshall 13y ago
It's important to remember that the Mozilla Foundation does more than just Firefox -- Thunderbird, Firefox OS, Mozilla Labs, Mozilla Research, etc. all get a slice of the pie. So while Firefox would likely survive, it'd imagine it would look much more like the post-Netscape, pre-MFL years. No more work on stuff like Rust, Servo, asm.js, things like Thunderbird would atrophy... That said, I'm not sold on Mozilla needing Google; I'm sure they could swing a deal with Bing. What strange bedfellows that'd make.
- taopao 13y ago
  I would like to think they'd annihilate each other like antimatter and antimatter. Microsoft tried to smother OSS on many occasions, both directly, through FUD, and by proxy (SCO). Embrace extend extinguish. Steamrolling Windows-only solutions over standards. They just killed patent reform efforts. It just seems like they embody the opposite of Mozilla organization's ideals.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kibwen 13y ago

Mozilla acknowledges this as such in their annual financial reports (and has for a while now): "Concentrations of Risk: Mozilla entered into a contract with a search engine provider for royalties which expires November 2014. The previous contract term expired in November 2011. Approximately 90% and 85% of royalty revenue for 2012 and 2011, respectively, was derived from this contract. The receivable from this search engine provider represented 69% and 77% of the December 31, 2012 and 2011 outstanding receivables, respectively." I wouldn't worry too much about it. The fact that Google was forced to up its bid during the last round of contract negotiations means that Mozilla's value to Google has only increased, despite Chrome's presence on the browser scene.

guiomie 13y ago

Whats with the huge loss in forex ?

tvanantwerp 13y ago

A lot of folks here are suggesting that Google's status as a primary source of revenue for Mozilla does NOT leave Mozilla beholden to Google's wishes. Without arguing if this is true or not, I'd like to ask a follow-up: are nonprofit/political organizations that receive substantial support from the Koch brothers also NOT beholden to the Koch brothers? Why or why not?

zimbatm 13y ago

Where is the evidence that the revenue is coming from Google ? If you look at the actual report[1], Google is never mentioned. From that all we can conclude is that Mozilla has made more revenue on Royalties. Mozilla has diversified it's income stream with FirefoxOS and it's entry into the mobile market. Couldn't some of the royalties come from Telephonica and other mobile operators ? [1]: https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...

jlgaddis 13y ago
"Concentrations of Risk: Mozilla entered into a contract with a search engine provider for royalties which expires November 2014. The previous contract term expired in November 2011. Approximately 90% and 85% of royalty revenue for 2012 and 2011, respectively, was derived from this contract. The receivable from this search engine provider represented 69% and 77% of the December 31, 2012 and 2011 outstanding receivables, respectively."

hojoff79 13y ago

The sentiment below is correct, there should not be a real concern here for Mozilla. Here's how you should think about it from a business perspective. Most (but not all) companies should be concerned about their bargaining power with customers when revenue is highly concentrated. This concern comes from the fact that customers can threaten to leave, which will significantly decrease revenue and be difficult to replace. Consequently, many companies will lower prices under the logic that retaining 90% of that revenue is better than the results from trying to replace it with smaller revenue opportunities. However, this is far from the case for Mozilla. Google pays Mozilla in order to be the DEFAULT search engine (which is valuable on the theory of consumer inertia). The default position is a limited commodity; there is only one default position and, therefore, by doing business with Google they are passing on other business. If Google left then Mozilla would be able to sell that default position to someone else (probably Yahoo or Microsoft) and would be able to replace most of that revenue with comparable revenue very quickly. I would argue Google is in the more difficult position here. Google has a some (not a lot) concentration of their acquired traffic from Mozilla (I think ~10%), and that is not a limited commodity. If there were other comparable traffic acquisition opportunities available, Google would pursue them. Google is not necessarily passing on other business because of their business with Mozilla (while, as explained above, Mozilla is passing on other business because of their Google deal). So presumably if Mozilla and Google part ways, that Google business (revenue, profit etc.) would be lost (at least for now) and take some time / effort to replace. While Mozilla’s power over Google is definitely small, I would say with certainty Mozilla should not be concerned about their Google concentration in this scenario.