Instead, the article is simply saying that Google wised up and realized they had no need to give Mozilla that much money so instead, Mozilla convinced other gullible corporations to give them money.
Once that stream dries up (and it will), Mozilla will meet the fate that it deserves and die."
== I don't see why this text was offensive or the comment was killed by flags...
The article clearly says that 2014 revenues was something like $300 million and most if not all was from a single-point corporate contract. Somehow, undisclosed in the article, all of this revenue has been replaced by non-google corporate contracts. Such that 2015/2016 will presumably not see much decline. Or, in other words, Mozilla was able to fully replace one Corporate sponsor with another (or another set).
The key question for everyone here is what, if anything, does that matter? By not explaining of discussing the changes in the terms of the contracts/business model, not much at all transparency has been added to Mozilla's motivations or long-term outlook.
Maybe this info is out there somewhere else, but decent reporting should have highlighted those links somewhere in tha artcicle. I'm surprised as well HN comments don't seem to cover this topic anywhere either, but maybe I;ve missed the discussion somewhere...