I want to be very careful here. As much as I'm very adamant that the offline installer should not have been removed. The business concern is that there are people freeloading off of the software who have ample resources to pay for it. While there are gray areas, I think we can all agree that someone like Amazon should be paying for the software they use. I think we can all also agree that if there's someone out there selling an unofficial pfSense appliance, that company should be paying for pfSense.
The problem that the pfSense team is trying to solve with the online installer is the freeloader problem described above. I think this was the wrong way to approach this, but we have to understand where they were coming from and realize that just saying "give us back the offline installer" is not productive because it doesn't solve their problem. We need to be talking in terms that supports an offline installer AND ALSO helps solve their freeloader problem.
Additionally when we use the word "customer" (someone who pays for a product) when we really mean "user", it conflates things. If everyone who used pfSense was indeed a "customer", then I don't think we would have ever ended up with an online-only installer.