Extremely subjective, personal data point: I've been running with an extension (https://bandwidth-hero.com/ https://bandwidth-hero.com/) that compresses all ima

Extremely subjective, personal data point: I've been running with an extension (https://bandwidth-hero.com/ https://bandwidth-hero.com/) that compresses all images (including jpeg) and renders them in webp. I'm a typical social networks browser, so among the images I see a high majority of them don't need high quality. I'm running the extension with max compression but still keep colors: compression artifacts are clearly visible, but in my opinion they're not a problem. Looking at /r/all right now, there are 2 images that "deserve" to remain at the original resolution, the rest is typical pictures of text/memes that don't need all the bytes they currently have. The result: overall I saved 80% of data, just with images. In my case it's not so much a debate of JPEG vs WebP, but a debate of whether it's ok to keep images _on the web_ in their unoptimized form the way they are today, to which of course my answer is no. We don't need high quality images of a Facebook screenshot when compressing it to 20% of its original size can convey the same information with no subjective loss. I do agree on the unwieldy nature of WebP though, it's still mostly a read-only format right now and turns the web into a consumption platform