3 ms·

Isn't part of the issue the network effect, not the file format? (We can develop a whizzbang new compression algorithm, but unless Windows, macOS, iOS, Android

Isn't part of the issue the network effect, not the file format? (We can develop a whizzbang new compression algorithm, but unless Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and all the flavors of Linux add support it can't go beyond the device)

MBCook 8y ago
I’d say so. That was one of the things that killed JPEG2000. Even if people bought encoders no one could view it anyway so it was useless. EDIT: Comr to think of it this was the problem with APNG trying to replace GIF. Everything supports GIF, no one supported APNG (relative to GIF) so it never really gained traction. Even though 75% of users have a browser that supports it the format has no mindshare so no one uses it.
- ksec 8y ago
  It is interesting the JPEG CFP pdf note JPEG2000 as being widely successful, when it is barely used outside certain domain. And it names JPEG2000 being royalty free, but on Wikipedia they mention they problem of patents. And it is only free for baseline ( Whatever that means )
  - mattkrause 8y ago
    DICOM, a medical imaging format (meta-format? The spec is a beast) supports JPEG2000 compression. There are a lot of DICOM files kicking around, though annoying not every device can write files with JPEG2000 compression, nor can every reader actually interpret them. I also had a no-name digital camera that inexplicably supported JPEG2000. Other than that, I’m don’t think I’ve seen it much in the wild.
    - derf_ 8y ago
      It's supported in Safari (c.f. JPEG XR in Edge and WebP in Chrome). It is also used for digital cinema distribution. It was chosen for that role specifically because it was not in widespread use.
  - derf_ 8y ago
    > And it is only free for baseline ( Whatever that means ) To be fair, the same was true of the original JPEG when it was released. JPEG also has an optional arithmetic coder based on IBM's Q-coder, which was heavily patented at the time. To this day, no one implements that, even though it does improve the compression and even though IBM's patents have long expired.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > no one supported APNG (relative to GIF) so it never really gained traction. I think that the creators of PNG being against it and saying we should all use MNG instead didn't really help. Not to mention the fact that it took ages for plain PNGs to be supported by browsers.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Really? I’d never heard that. To be fair I’m only vaguely aware of APNG. I thought it was called PNGA before I looked it up to see what browsers supported it for my comment.

MBCook 8y ago

I’d say so. That was one of the things that killed JPEG2000. Even if people bought encoders no one could view it anyway so it was useless. EDIT: Comr to think of it this was the problem with APNG trying to replace GIF. Everything supports GIF, no one supported APNG (relative to GIF) so it never really gained traction. Even though 75% of users have a browser that supports it the format has no mindshare so no one uses it.

ksec 8y ago
It is interesting the JPEG CFP pdf note JPEG2000 as being widely successful, when it is barely used outside certain domain. And it names JPEG2000 being royalty free, but on Wikipedia they mention they problem of patents. And it is only free for baseline ( Whatever that means )
- mattkrause 8y ago
  DICOM, a medical imaging format (meta-format? The spec is a beast) supports JPEG2000 compression. There are a lot of DICOM files kicking around, though annoying not every device can write files with JPEG2000 compression, nor can every reader actually interpret them. I also had a no-name digital camera that inexplicably supported JPEG2000. Other than that, I’m don’t think I’ve seen it much in the wild.
  - derf_ 8y ago
    It's supported in Safari (c.f. JPEG XR in Edge and WebP in Chrome). It is also used for digital cinema distribution. It was chosen for that role specifically because it was not in widespread use.
- derf_ 8y ago
  > And it is only free for baseline ( Whatever that means ) To be fair, the same was true of the original JPEG when it was released. JPEG also has an optional arithmetic coder based on IBM's Q-coder, which was heavily patented at the time. To this day, no one implements that, even though it does improve the compression and even though IBM's patents have long expired.
vanderZwan 8y ago
> no one supported APNG (relative to GIF) so it never really gained traction. I think that the creators of PNG being against it and saying we should all use MNG instead didn't really help. Not to mention the fact that it took ages for plain PNGs to be supported by browsers.
- MBCook 8y ago
  Really? I’d never heard that. To be fair I’m only vaguely aware of APNG. I thought it was called PNGA before I looked it up to see what browsers supported it for my comment.