> Large downloads dramatically decrease the number of
> users who get from a download page to actually running
> an application

I think I almost entirely agree with you on that.

> they would be foolish to make things worse for the
> majority of users

I'm arguing that this provision (clearly pointing the way toward an offline install) would not make things worse for anyone.

> just to make them slightly easier for theoretical users

I am not a "theoretical" user. I am an actual user.

> ...do things like pick your install directory, and then
> forget about the install process entirely as it
> completes without your supervision. That's a good thing,
> and it isn't possible with offline installers.

What?! What are you even talking about? I can pick my install directory with the full installer. I double click the icon, it asks me for the directory, it runs, and then the end.

Firefox's installer is dead simple, and believe me, I am HUGELY grateful for that. The only thing easier than the Windows installer is unzipping the Linux tarball into whatever path I choose. I hate Adobe's Flash and PDF installers, and I fucking DESPISE the Java installer, with its damnable bundling of that bloody Ask.com toolbar.

Seeing Firefox add these additional layers of background updater services and stub installers deeply worries me, and fills me with concern that as a "salary paying organization" (albeit, ostensibly non-profit), they might veer down an ugly path, go the way of the Sith, and start engaging in questionable behavior that is inappropriate for an open source project.

Consider the example of Ubuntu's desktop file search bundling Amazon ads in the results. What if one day, Mozilla decides that in order to pay the bills, it needs to negotiate a deal, whereby all those users with automatic updating enabled should get railroaded with some kind of optional-but-defaulted-to-enabled third party feature suggesting helpful reminders to buy more burritos from Jimbo's Refried Beans Emporium. Just sayin'...

> Browsers like Firefox and Chrome already need network
> access after installation anyway.

Not to do things without my permission, they don't. This "need" business... I disagree.

A browser only "needs" to to exactly what I ask it to do, and not much else. I tell the browser what to do, not the other way around.

> They update on a regular basis, and pull down optional

Optional. That's an important adjective in your sentence.

> packages like Chrome's software WebGL rasterizer,
> malware blacklists, and Firefox's GPU blacklist.

Yeah, the very same blacklist that I'm frequently bypassing to check out all the cool Web GL experiments people post here on HN. I know all about that.

Malware blacklists are another concept that I tend to reject as mostly ineffective in achieving their stated goal. We could go round and around with that argument for days. Let's not get started on THAT can of worms.

> So, in practice, it is already impossible to do a true
> offline install of either browser; you just may not be
> aware of the things that are left out of the installer.

When you use the word "impossible", I have to just flatly disagree with you. And in general, most of the things that you mentioned are things that I don't care about, and will never be interested in.