OK, it is subjective, which one is better. Still, different people will have a different opinion, and may have an argument for/against it, too.
> For example browser access to the Camera may be unwanted by many, but at the same time has enabled a whole range of video-chat, barcode-scanning, and translation Web apps.
I don't mean access to the camera or stuff like that in general; I mean the way they aren't very user-oriented.
Web browsers don't do things like these:
- A command to save form data to local files and later recall them on the same or a compatible form. (I don't mean for a document script to contain such a command. I mean for it to be included in the "File" menu, or a keyboard command, or such.)
- Play back a GIF or PNG animation as a video, rather than as a picture.
- When file uploads are expected, you could specify a different remote file name than the local file name, you could specify a pipe, or you could specify to capture it (that is the way to design the camera access working better, at least if you only need a still picture or non-live video; it doesn't work for live video, but even when live video is allegedly needed, you should be allowed to specify a file or external encoder program instead if wanted (e.g. if you do not have a camera)).
- A table of contents window (it can auto-generate it).
- Regular expression search.
- ARIA view suitable for non-blind users too.
- Be able for the user to disable and/or override various features.
- Edit <textarea> fields in external editors.
- Meta-CSS (usable only by the end user, not by document authors).
Some features they have in older ones, but they tend to remove stuff instead and just make it worse. Some browsers do actually do some of these things better, but some don't. Some of them can be implemented in extensions, but WebExtensions is limited compared with XUL/XPCOM. Why does it need an extension even to edit cookies (although you can view cookies without an extension)? Their priorities aren't very good. The "no user recourse" feature is especially terrible.
One good feature is the web developer console, but the main reason it is helpful is due to the mess they made; it isn't needed much when viewing old fashion web pages.
(Another disadvantage is trying to use it in bad ways, when there are much better protocols and VMs and stuff that you can use for various other purposes. And yet, another disadvantage, they waste too many resources, making it slow, even when you can do it more efficiently. Of course, a lot of this isn't the fault of the writers of the web browser.)