6 ms·
Won't the on-line Porn Industry have to adopt this for large scale adoption to take place? I'd think that the size decrease alone would sell the Porn Industry.
by bediger 16y ago
Won't the on-line Porn Industry have to adopt this for large scale adoption to take place?
I'd think that the size decrease alone would sell the Porn Industry.
- mhd 16y agoAre galleries that important? I thought right now it's all about videos.
- nlogn 16y agoWhat about all the "video preview" images? Surely porn sites would benefit from serving less bytes there.
- mhd 16y agoI don't think those are important enough to risk browser compatibility issues, I don't see a reason why the porn industry would throw its weight in the ring because of this. And that's if this new format would actually have advantages at these sizes. The factor doesn't need to remain constant in different resolutions. (And even if, we're talking about small pictures anyway, so if you save 1kb per preview pic, would this matter compared to the video stream bandwidth?)
- pjscott 16y agoThere are no browser compatibility issues if you use conservative HTTP content negotiation. Browsers which support WebP can say so in their HTTP Accept headers, and the server can serve WebP to those browsers, falling back on ordinary JPEG for older browsers. This was also used back when PNG support was spotty, by sites which wanted to combine the goodness of PNG with the ubiquity of GIF. It's actually pretty simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation Now that I think about it, there's probably a business opportunity for someone who handles such hosting issues for image-heavy web sites. The porn industry may seem sketchy, but they have a lot of money and a pressing need to keep overhead down.
- mhd 16y agoYes, but it has to have some significant effect. For this to happen, the gain from the format conversion has to matter for the porn sites use case, this has to be a certain percentage of bandwidth (wonder how that's for video sites), and then the amount of browser who support it (not just advertise it, cf. IE and its PNG "support") has to be high enough. Anybody got some statistics on browser distribution on a major *tube site? I guess we'll see a lot of Internet Explorer there, although it Chrome's "incognito" mode may have found some fans.
- pjscott 16y agoThe cost of format conversion can be made very low by having it done automatically by the web server. It'll just take some time for the software to do that.
- barrkel 16y agoSoft / "art" sites focus much more on stills, and headline pixel counts, e.g. met-art etc. I would expect them to prefer large file sizes, to aggravate people who like to scrape content.
- RexRollman 16y agoAs a past member of Met-Art and current member of Digital Desire, I would think that this has the potential to save lots of bandwidth for those types of services. And even the services that do specialize in videos usually offer photos sets of shoots, so it would still benefit them as well. The trick will be to build enough mass to make it common enough for all the browsers to support WebP. I can see Firefox and Webkit adding it fairly quickly, so the real question is, if and when will Microsoft support it?
- wtracy 16y agoI would expect the large file sizes to hurt the host at least as much as the scrapers. Better to insert random delays in responses to HTTP requests from suspected scrapers (or outright reject them).
- pjscott 16y agoI would expect them to prefer smaller file sizes, especially in public preview galleries, to lower their bandwidth costs. Someone scraping high-quality images incurs a small one-time bandwidth cost, and they can re-encode the images at a lower quality if they want to save bandwidth.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]