This would be such a terrible look for them. Implementing a browser but not letting you actually use it would be even worse lol.
Why? It's a big resource hog and huge liability to the overall security of the OS and system. Yet it is a possible requirement for the use of the device on the go when attempting to connect to public wifi services.
Having a bare minimum solution to display webpages for public wifi authentication services without actually letting you use it to navigate is a smart way to handle things. It eliminates the only major issue lacking a browser would actually introduce, while not requiring any real system resources be reserved for it and limiting the potential vulnerabilities a browser would pose to the OS.
A browser is a feature the vast majority of people will never use, but many will complain about it because they feel they're being robbed of something regardless of that fact. Including it simply because some will make a bit to do about it, despite the vast majority of your customers likely never using it, is a terrible way to run a business. Especially when said feature has proven to be a huge vulnerability for them on every single device they've included one in.
A few things. I don't use console internet browsers, but I do use portable ones, for the hotel WiFi situation listed above. We have also had a number of threads where others have denigrated the Wii U's browsing and app capabilities, only to be responded to with folks who use the those services.
Now, in the Time interview this came from, Nintendo acknowledges that it wants to be a lifestyle device.
The issue is that Nintendo previously understood what most platform holders get. If you want to be a lifestyle device with constant use, then you need to provide the services that prevent them from going to other platforms.
For many mainstream consumers, gaming is a "good enough" situation. You may feel mobile gaming lacks depth and control, but the gaming is secondary. The point is they have a device that is always there and provides a myriad of uses. That it can also game is a value add and those experiences reflect how people game on the go.
Now, you can absolutely say "I don't particularly need that and it's not a problem for me". Rock out. To say "It's not a problem at all" is incorrect. That's not overreacting, that's not outrage, that's not rioting. It's simple criticism based on the market the Switch is launching into. If you're a Nintendo fan, you want them to succeed outside of yourself, because hard Nintendo fans carried the Wii U to 13.56 million units, which was dire. You should want Nintendo to provide a strong value to the average consumer, because this means more systems sold, which means more games sold, which means more money for Nintendo, which feeds back into the rest.
The more a consumer has to rely on a smartphone or tablet for services they expect, the more likely they will rethink a $300 purchase. Again, this isn't an iOS/Android device at the point of sale versus a Switch. They already have the other devices. (This is similar to the Switch's home console problem for many.) You're trying to convince someone to buy this in addition. And "It plays Nintendo games" isn't enough of an answer. It wasn't for the Wii U at all and it wasn't for the 3DS, which required a hefty price drop, mixed with a wider variety of software to kick off.
I have to disagree with this entire premise because the Wii U included everything, as well as the Kitchen sink. You had video chat, web browsing, TV remote functions and probably more. No one gave a shit. And the reason why, because their other devices and systems performed those functions better or we more convenient. Sure some people love the Wii U browser, good for them. But most people who own a Wii U don't use it because it's not better than what their other devices offer and the far larger segment of the population that never bought a Wii U certainly didn't care or think it was a good trade off compared to their other devices.
Nintendo cannot compete with smart devices when it comes to these services. It just isn't going to happen and chasing that white rabbit is just a recipe for disaster and wasted money.
No matter how great their Browser is, the netflix app, etc etc it's going to pale in comparison to the vast majority of people's other devices. Unless it can do everything the other devices can do and better they not going to use those features on the Switch. People will always use their phones because they can call, text, instagram, snapchat, facebook, browse the web, watch youtube, netflix, etc etc all on one device, using data and not worrying about wifi. The Switch can and will never compete with that. Tablet penetration even hasn't become as big as phones because they still fail to be as convenient as them, people don't want to care about Wifi or their size. They'll take a 6" phone that barely fits in their pocket rather than a 10" tablet that needs wifi. Even in console mode it loses out. Smart Tvs now come with many of these features and you can stream from your phone or tablet straight to the TV. I can pull a video on youtube on my phone and have it play on my TV natively. I don't even need to use something like chromecast.
The Switch is going to live and die on its ability to interest people in the things on it can do. Playing games, games at home, games on the go, games with friends. Creating those experiences regardless of where you are and with other people. The relevancy of other features that might help keep some people more connected have tremendously huge diminishing returns.