(I'm speaking about authenticated connections. For anonymous access - which should be read-only anyway - you're usually better off using HTTP anyway)
So in that case, at least, I was very glad FTP(S) was still around.
FTP does have some advantages, but HTTP has more advanced support for resuming connections, virtual hosting, better compression, and persistent connections, to name a few.
I bet if we had used FTP instead of HTTP for serving HTML right from the start, FTP would today have all of the same extensions and the same people would argue for it being too bloated :) (HTTP started as pretty minimalistic protocol back in the day)
I often find the discrepancy between what HTTP has originally been designed for (serving static HTML pages) and all the different things it's being used for today highly amusing. Yes, some of todays applications for HTTP border on abuse, but its versatility (combined with its simplicity) fascinates me.
The two success factors of http are statelessness and fixed verbs.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/732/170/796...
HTTP is quite a good protocol. Simple, extensible to a sane extent, but not overly extensible (XMPP i'm thinking about you). HTTP is not accidentally successful. FTP is a bad joke. (stateful. binary mode, 7 bit by default. uses multiple connections (unless in passive mode))