5 ms·

Maybe we can slow down development a little bit and actually design a format that will last for another 30 years instead of requiring browsers to support yet an

Maybe we can slow down development a little bit and actually design a format that will last for another 30 years instead of requiring browsers to support yet another hot new format every five years.

liveoneggs 6y ago
why bother when you can beta test on the most popular piece of software in continuous use around the world?
- asah 6y ago
  I think that ship has sailed a long time ago... software needs regular updates for security patching, so adding new formats is not the big deal it once was... If nothing else, just provide a slow-but-correct decoder that translates the format to a long term stable format (e.g. PNG).
  - ttfkam 6y ago
    An in-app decoder would translate to pixel data. Why would you re-encode to a different format like PNG that's optimized for storage when rendering to a display?
    - asah 6y ago
      Sorry I meant recode to pass into tools/libraries that no longer support the older format.
- TonyTrapp 6y ago
  That doesn't work so well with the whole ecosystem around it that actually creates those files. Think of graphics programs that still don't support WebP or cameras that cannot simply be updated... oh wait, smartphones already killed those.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Why does it matter if a camera supports WebP or not?
- Spivak 6y ago
  Because nobody actually needs to use this format if it doesn't benefit them. If the headline was "Google developing new proprietary image format to reduce web traffic to Google services by by 2% in Chrome" it would be a non-issue. It seems odd that Google is being punished for releasing their work to anyone who wants it.
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    If it was framed that way, they’d be wide open to accusations of anticompetitive behaviour—using their position of operating their various web services and making a browser to push functionality that benefits just them into their browser, which no other company would be able to do.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      That paints kind of a weird perspective on open source and open formats. Companies develop and release lots of OSS specifically because it benefits them to write and maintain it. Twitter made twemproxy for their own scaling issues but then released it to the world. I don't see a difference with Google here. "We made this thing because it solves a problem we have, and we're giving it away so it might solve the same problem for you" doesn't seem nefarious.
mpol 6y ago
This is one of the many problems that come from Google having so much market power. This is really the Google development practices being forced onto everyone; iterate fast, create new stuff and throw old stuff away when you feel like it. I do hope other browser makers like Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari will hold back on this, like they should have done with Webp v1.
- srgpqt 6y ago
  Safari only just got webp support super recently. Seems like they held back on it long enough...
  - Eric_WVGG 6y ago
    Also note that it’s only Safari 14 on the new OS releases; Safari 14 on Mojave can’t view them.
- jefftk 6y ago
  WebP was introduced in September 2010, Mozilla started supporting it in Firefox in 2019, and Apple is just adding it to Safari now. You think they should have waited longer than 10 years? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
  - lukeramsden 6y ago
    They should have waited indefinitely. WebP has been a big source of confusion for non-technical people I know, trying to download images from the internet.
    - xbmcuser 6y ago
      If you want to stop progress for the least technically inclined to accept you will stop all progress for ever.
      - lukeramsden 6y ago
blihp 6y ago
Not going to happen as long as people keep following their lead. It's in Google's interest to do things like maximize compression (especially for video and images) since it reduces their operational costs in the form of transmitting fewer bytes. Sure it benefits everyone (a bit), but while others might prioritize a bit more stability in standards, Google (and other major hosting services) value the reduced opex now. For most of the rest of us, we're well into diminishing returns on chasing the latest codec.
anonuser123456 6y ago
At Google, you can't get promoted by steering the ship.
SahAssar 6y ago
Do you think that image (or video since a lot of tech overlaps) formats move so slowly that over 30 years there is no innovation worth considering?
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
I'm pretty sure feature churn and foisting technical debt onto your competitors is a feature, not a bug for Google.

Maybe we can slow down development a little bit and actually design a format that will last for another 30 years instead of requiring browsers to support yet another hot new format every five years.

liveoneggs 6y ago

why bother when you can beta test on the most popular piece of software in continuous use around the world?

asah 6y ago
I think that ship has sailed a long time ago... software needs regular updates for security patching, so adding new formats is not the big deal it once was... If nothing else, just provide a slow-but-correct decoder that translates the format to a long term stable format (e.g. PNG).
- ttfkam 6y ago
  An in-app decoder would translate to pixel data. Why would you re-encode to a different format like PNG that's optimized for storage when rendering to a display?
  - asah 6y ago
    Sorry I meant recode to pass into tools/libraries that no longer support the older format.
TonyTrapp 6y ago
That doesn't work so well with the whole ecosystem around it that actually creates those files. Think of graphics programs that still don't support WebP or cameras that cannot simply be updated... oh wait, smartphones already killed those.
- detaro 6y ago
  Why does it matter if a camera supports WebP or not?
Spivak 6y ago
Because nobody actually needs to use this format if it doesn't benefit them. If the headline was "Google developing new proprietary image format to reduce web traffic to Google services by by 2% in Chrome" it would be a non-issue. It seems odd that Google is being punished for releasing their work to anyone who wants it.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  If it was framed that way, they’d be wide open to accusations of anticompetitive behaviour—using their position of operating their various web services and making a browser to push functionality that benefits just them into their browser, which no other company would be able to do.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    That paints kind of a weird perspective on open source and open formats. Companies develop and release lots of OSS specifically because it benefits them to write and maintain it. Twitter made twemproxy for their own scaling issues but then released it to the world. I don't see a difference with Google here. "We made this thing because it solves a problem we have, and we're giving it away so it might solve the same problem for you" doesn't seem nefarious.

mpol 6y ago

This is one of the many problems that come from Google having so much market power. This is really the Google development practices being forced onto everyone; iterate fast, create new stuff and throw old stuff away when you feel like it. I do hope other browser makers like Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari will hold back on this, like they should have done with Webp v1.

srgpqt 6y ago
Safari only just got webp support super recently. Seems like they held back on it long enough...
- Eric_WVGG 6y ago
  Also note that it’s only Safari 14 on the new OS releases; Safari 14 on Mojave can’t view them.
jefftk 6y ago
WebP was introduced in September 2010, Mozilla started supporting it in Firefox in 2019, and Apple is just adding it to Safari now. You think they should have waited longer than 10 years? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- lukeramsden 6y ago
  They should have waited indefinitely. WebP has been a big source of confusion for non-technical people I know, trying to download images from the internet.
  - xbmcuser 6y ago
    If you want to stop progress for the least technically inclined to accept you will stop all progress for ever.
    - lukeramsden 6y ago

blihp 6y ago

Not going to happen as long as people keep following their lead. It's in Google's interest to do things like maximize compression (especially for video and images) since it reduces their operational costs in the form of transmitting fewer bytes. Sure it benefits everyone (a bit), but while others might prioritize a bit more stability in standards, Google (and other major hosting services) value the reduced opex now. For most of the rest of us, we're well into diminishing returns on chasing the latest codec.

anonuser123456 6y ago

At Google, you can't get promoted by steering the ship.

SahAssar 6y ago

Do you think that image (or video since a lot of tech overlaps) formats move so slowly that over 30 years there is no innovation worth considering?

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

I'm pretty sure feature churn and foisting technical debt onto your competitors is a feature, not a bug for Google.