Even as Google launched its own browser, it's continued to funnel millions of dollars to Mozilla, the nonprofit maker of Firefox. Almost 90 percent of Mozilla's revenues — last reported at $75 million in 2007 — have come from a search-referral deal in which Google pays Mozilla when Firefox users perform searches in the browser's toolbar. Shortly before Google launched Chrome, Mozilla and Google renewed the deal through 2011.

But a Google-eyed tipster tells us that Google is looking for ways to cut its support of Mozilla sharply. This has top Mozilla engineers spooked, and several of them have popped by the Googleplex to interview for jobs there.

It makes sense that Google would want to support its own Chrome Web browser. And yet bullying a nonprofit would seem to clash with Google's "don't be evil" motto. Perhaps "don't lose money" has become more important.

I've edited down Om Malik's report on the talk.

• “Any desktop application that has not been implemented in the browser is now going to be implemented in the browser.”
• Chrome's speed, especially its advanced JavaScript engine, will push Firefox and Internet Explorer developers to make massive upgrades to their own products. “Microsoft can build good products when they want to."
• “If JavaScript gets any faster, then developers will question if they should develop in Flash or Silverlight."
• “Super interactive browser that sits atop a super-fast connection…now interesting things will happen over the next 5-10 years."

(Photo by Joi Ito)

You know, like maybe a preferential app placement, integration of MS Live Search or MSN Messenger, or at least some stickers.

But no, Facebook asks you to "Please keep it real" and use Firefox, Opera, Safari or Flock — the latter having sub-minuscule market share. Somebody call COO Sheryl Sandberg, because obviously some developer at Facebook is having far too much fun and it needs to be stopped.

85 percent of Mozilla's $67 million in revenues in 2006, the most recent year reported, came from Google, it's true. But Sullivan seems to think this is some kind of bribe, with Mozilla picking Google as the search engine because the company is showering the browser maker with cash.

Utter nonsense. Google pays Mozilla a cut of the revenue generated when Firefox users conduct Google searches. In Asia, Mozilla defaults to Yahoo, not Google, because Yahoo has a larger user and advertiser base in the region, making its searches more lucrative. It's all about the money, sure. But why shouldn't it be?

Mozilla could open up Firefox as Sullivan suggests. The end result would be a lot of annoyed users who have to go through an extra step as they pick their search engine, which would likely be Google anyway. Google doesn't need to bribe Mozilla; the superior economics of its business do the work for Google.

This, by the way, is also why nothing has come of the perpetual rumors that Google is working on its own browser. It could easily build one. But why bother? As long as Google's search ads are more profitable than the competition, there's no reason for Mozilla to send Firefox users elsewhere. A Google browser might hurt adoption of Firefox, which would do more to lower the number of Google searches than Google's own browser would do to raise it. Build a browser? Sure, Google might get to that after it finishes shooting itself in the foot.

Here's something I wonder: Why does no one ask the same question about Apple's Safari browser, which likewise defaults to Google? Google must be paying Apple a considerable amount of money every year, though not enough to break out in its financial reports; Google CEO Eric Schmidt serves on Apple's board, as does Al Gore, who is a senior advisor to Google. Apple has a monopoly on the browser installed on Mac OS X computers, and makes it harder to switch the default search engine; I don't hear anyone calling for Apple to free its browser search.

Which makes me think people like Sullivan are picking on Firefox not because they believe in open browser search, but because Mozilla, owned by a nonprofit, is a more easily pressured target. A familiar stratagem of attention-seeking activists. Let's not pretend that calling for open search is anything but a tactic for generating false controversy. And let's not pretend that Mozilla is doing anything except trying to make money.

The Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit, but the arm which makes Firefox is actually a for-profit corporation. The charitable parent gave away less than $100,000 in 2006, despite the for-profit business's $66 million in revenue. Its chief executive makes more than $500,000 in salary and benefits. Is the foundation going corporate? Almost certainly. But apologists also say Mozilla is just being smart. Hanging on to the money Mozilla earns from Google now will help it maintain its independence later if Google ever decides to create its own browser.