Disposable ones don't give you that great of an end result.
I respectuflly disagree, for most instances.
Overall, yes, digital can be better than film only because you can take SO MANY MORE shots, and also know
instantly if they're any good or not.
The other thing that can make a "real" camera better than a disposable camera is zoom.
But all else being equal, disposable cameras take just as good shots as "real" cameras. On "real" cameras, most people aren't going to make manual adjustments for shutter speed or depth of field.
A few years back, in the pre-digital camera era, I went on a cruise with a group. I brought my trusty 35mm SLR, and a buddy of mine came with a bag full of disposable cameras he bought at a gas station/convenience store chain on the way to the airport. We purposely tried an experiment. We took a lot of identical shots, standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Of course, when I used my zoom or when I adjusted depth of field (for instance, keeping the subject in sharp focus while purposely blurring the background) or when I adjusted shutter speed (for low light situations, or to make moving water either blur or "freeze") the shots came out differently. But for the "normal" shots, the kind that most people take most of the time anyway,
you couldn't tell which was from the expensive SLR and which from the gas station disposable.
Overall, the biggest factor in the quality of a photograph is the photographer, not the camera.