5 ms·

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.

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.