[wtallis]

Please consider the possibility that some proposed features should not exist. The objections to many of Chrome's features are fundamental, not aesthetic, or complaints about nuances of how it's implemented. Many people outside Google simply do not want the browser to be a full-fledged OS, especially if that means weakening privacy or security controls of the host OS.

Sometimes, the right response to a feature proposal is simply "no". But you're seemingly unwilling to accept that as a valid answer. The alternative you're not seeing is that of not having the dubious features in the browser.

[cnst]

But those features do exist as long as you're willing to pay Apple's tax.

I feel like that's already explained in the originally linked article here.

If you don't want Bluetooth from your browser, you can always install Firefox on Android.

I feel like it's 2005, and you're arguing that web browsers should not have access to a camera.

Or is camera access by a web browser still not a standard today in 2025, either, thanks to Apple, I may guess?

[cnst]

Or let me tell you as a Firefox user on macOS.

I'd much rather have to switch to Brave or Vivaldi for a video phone call, or keyboard configuration, or NFC, than install half a dozen of outdated third-party XXX-only apps with full permissions and questionable security practices or distribution methods.

The better question to ask here, is, why would you NOT want to have a CHOICE to have these things in a secure browser by SEVERAL distinct major vendors like Google, Microsoft, Brave and Vivaldi, and Yandex, and Opera, and others?

Again, I don't even use Chrome. I replace it even on Android. So, I am not concerned with Google taking me over, because they clearly aren't.

But how am I more secure when I have to install lots of dodgy apps to get the most basic things like video conferencing working?