Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

Summary: Mozilla's big reliance on Google might actually be worth it -- up to the point of $300 million per year.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Google, Browser
19

Mozilla's reliance on Google seems to be worth it -- at least for the next three years as the search engine giant is reportedly paying the Firefox maker $300 million per year under the new search deal.

AllThingsD reports that the payoff, close to $1 billion for all three years, "was the minimum revenue guarantee for delivering search queries garnered from consumers using Firefox."

When the agreement was announcement first on Tuesday, financial terms were not disclosed except that it would provide “a significant and mutually beneficial revenue” stream for both parties. If Mozilla is getting this amount as part of the bargain, it will just as interesting to see what Google can do with this opportunity as well.

This will also make matters significantly more competitive in the search market against Yahoo and Microsoft's mutual search agreement.

Other search engines that sit below Google within the Firefox browser are Yahoo, Bing, Amazon.com, eBay and Wikipedia.

See also: Google and Mozilla renew search deal, but on what terms? Firefox hits the jackpot with almost billion dollar Google deal

Even before Google and Mozilla renewed their agreement this week ensuring that Google would be the default search engine on Firefox, it was questionable how much that Mozilla should rely on Google for its revenue.

After all, it was revealed that Google contributed approximately 84 percent of Mozilla’s $123 million in revenue last year.

But it is apparently paying off, at least in the short term, as it effectively triples Mozilla's revenue for the next few years.

Related:

Topics: Google, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

19 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

    If it stops Yahoo! planting its rebadged Bing search so deep that it's like removing a virus, then it gets my vote.

    Sadly, giving to Mozilla these days is more an act of charity and public relations than it is a genuine investment.

    Sure, it's perfectly possible that Mozilla will use the money wisely and make real progress ... they have fallen so far behind, that it's hard to imagine them recovering. But good luck to them.
    Heenan73
    • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

      @Heenan73
      In what respect are they behind anyone?
      x I'm tc
      • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

        @jdakula
        Version numbers
        paul2011
    • Easy money will keep Mozilla fat, dumb and happy

      @Heenan73 It is an act of charity. They need it. They have fallen behind and they know it. I think they should sue Opera, the browser ballot in Europe is rigged in their favor!
      otaddy
    • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

      @Heenan73
      I'd like to know how far behind they are as well.
      ScorpioBlue
  • Good news

    Perhaps now Mozilla can build, release and maintain an edition of Firefox for the enterprise and consumers, like myself, that prefer stability to the next big thing.
    Rabid Howler Monkey
    • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

      @Rabid Howler Monkey Why would they pure money down the drain.

      If anything they will invest the cash in businesses beyond the browser and try to diversify there revenue, how, I honestly have not got a clue but it does not make sense for them to rely on sugar daddies forever.
      Knowles2
      • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

        @Knowles2 I wouldn't call the enterprise, including corporations like IBM, "down the drain".

        There's lots to improve in the Firefox browser and web browsing is Mozilla's shtick. Some examples:

        o Sandbox Firefox by default on multiple desktop platforms, especially Windows and Mac OS X (desktop Linux with it's 1-2% market share gets little, if any, attention from the malware miscreants and popular distros such as Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, SLED, Fedora, Red Hat enterprise desktop, Debian and Mandriva provide users with the ability to configure and/or enable LSM sandboxes for Firefox)
        o Build, release and maintain an edition of Firefox for the enterprise
        o Extend Windows Group Policy to enable fine-grained management of Firefox and it's add-ons in the enterprise
        o Continue with the development of Firefox for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets

        I'm sure others have ideas as well, but, first and foremost, they need to keep their place as one of top web browsers. It's Firefox's market share, after all, that enables them to reach search deals with the likes of Google.
        Rabid Howler Monkey
  • This will also make matters significantly more competitive

    So, adding a little money to Firefox "will also make matters significantly more competitive in the search market?" How so? Was it just a lack of funds that "held them back?" You're making claims, but you're not supporting them.
    WebSiteManager
  • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

    So Ed Bott was saying he had a bridge to sell us if we believed Google was going to pay Mozilla the same amount it was before, but this is saying $300 million per year now vs. about $100 million last year? Where can I find Ed to buy that bridge?
    jgm@...
    • Yeah, it is surprising.

      @jgm@... I guess Google gets more than 300 million dollars in revenue from them...then again, maybe not, look at how they handle Android.
      otaddy
  • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

    Good news. Mozilla can continue building their browser and suck the money out of Google while doing it. Mozilla does not need Google but if Google is willing to toss money around then they should take it. Its almost comical.
    Loverock Davidson-
    • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

      @Loverock Davidson- I don't know, Mozilla seems to have become pretty reliant on the google teat while having to do some disgusting acts for the privilege...WebM support...gross! With all the market share they had they could have done some good. Instead they chose to wh0re for google.
      CowLauncher
      • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

        @CowLauncher <br>So supporting more things have become a disgusting act. Not surprising you think Google is a wh0re; their search results are way too good right? You sound like an IE user.
        anono
  • But at what cost

    Because, by the time this deal is up, Google will surpass Mozilla's market share.
    adacosta38
  • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

    $300 million/yr is just too much for just Firefox support -- Mozilla's total assets in 2008 were only $116 million and its total revenue in 2009 was just over $104 million, and in 2010 it was up to just over $123, with Google estimated as being responsible for about 85% of it. So tripling it to $300 million a year, because... what again, especially with Chrome doing so well?<br><br>What's been really missing from the the whole Gmail/Google Apps ecosphere is an integrated desktop client. That would essentially be a 100% replacement for Outlook. While web-based clients like Gmail have progressed well in features, and the Internet speeds keep going up and up to make them more responsive, a lot of people and corporations still prefer a configurable client that can access shared calendars and contacts, have custom filtering along with maybe integrated instant texting. And there are a number of add-ons to Outlook to integrate it to industry-specific apps in the legal industry and such. While as just an email client, Outlook is less functional than even Outlook Express, it's all the other things that come with it that makes it a fave with corporations. I know of one company that had switched over from an SBS system to Google Apps, and while they are very happy they did so, some of the old-time Outlook users still miss some of the more obscure features that were in Outlook. <br><br>Thunderbird had looked for a while that it might evolve into an all purpose Outlook replacement, including for Gmail, but it took a major stumble with the very buggy and slow 3.0 release. There are very few independent email clients still under active development (eM, Zimbra, Foxmail, Opera's integrated one, plus obscure, curious add-ons like DavMail) and the only non-Microsoft one with any widespread recognition is Thunderbird. I would not be surprised to see Thunderbird development get ramped up and become a more viable all-purpose email client that can finally replace Outlook in corporate and government environments. (It shouldn't be that hard considering what a dog Outlook 2010 has turned out to be.)
    JustCallMeBC
  • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

    import java.util.*;

    public class TryMe {
    public static void main(String args[]) {
    Queue<String> q = new PriorityQueue<String>();
    q.add("3");
    q.add("1");
    q.add("2");
    System.out.print(q.poll() + " ");
    System.out.print(q.peek() + " ");
    System.out.print(q.peek());
    }
    }
    yusuf.syed
    • RE: Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

      @yusuf.syed Wrong website. You are probably looking for http://codingbat.com/java to sharpen your Java skills. ;-)
      statuskwo5
  • How much does Google pay Apple for Safari?

    Firefox lists a number of search engines (more so than IE), to which others can be added (as they can to IE).

    In contrast, Safari has only two search engines, which are hardwired; you can't add more. Google is the default, Yahoo as runner-up.

    Seems like Safari is the better deal for Google, on a per-installation basis. I wonder what they pay/paid for that, and whether they did those sums based on a Mac-only market share? Did they get ambushed when Apple shipped Safari for Windows? Was this why Apple shoved Safari down our throats as an "update" to unrelated Appleware such as iTunes?
    cquirke