All those things enable fingerprinting, so they can't be added without losing privacy. If Chrome's renderer wasn't banned from the store we'd be back in an IE6 world where it's the only browser there is - it's already defeated Edge and Opera.
"fingerprinting" is one interesting counterpoint to the fact that the browser was highlighted as an alternative to the app store. but that browser is still laughably restricted.
And "because chrome" doesn't change the fact that restricting competition doesn't remove the restrictions put into place largely to force people into an overpriced app store.
lack of competition is a big thing... blocking people from better browsers and not fixing the bad browser in iOS isn't an acceptable answer when the tax for doing so is 30% and a subpar environment.
The difference being that Chrome is based on an open source project, Chromium, which can and is actively forked ( Edge and Brave to name two popular ones). And all the APIs it adds are wither standards, betas for standards hidden behind flags, or proposals for standards hidden behind flags.
So nothing like IE6?
Nothing in your 'Google Bad' diatribe challenges the fact that Safari is substandard, limited and - to your diatribe - safari in no way shape or form "makes ideas" and brings new things to the table... or "makes it easier to enter the market" (opposites of your complaint that google makes it harder).
Google is "Evil"? Okay? What does that have to do with a substandard experience and browser/app-store lock-in from Apple? It's not like Apple is "good" to counter apples "evil"...
To your IE6 point... Safari is the IE6 of Apple - stagnant, tied to the OS and blocks innovation because of company decisions. Its even worse because alternatives aren't allowed on iOS.