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to switch to Brave or Vivaldi for a video phone call, or keyboard configuration, or NFC, than install half a dozen of outdated third-party XXX-only apps with full permissions and questionable security practices or distribution methods.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