> this being one more standard to replace all the other standards a la the XKCD joke Even if JPEG XL does not replace all other image formats, note that as th

> this being one more standard to replace all the other standards a la the XKCD joke Even if JPEG XL does not replace all other image formats, note that as the computing industry is growing, so is the number of use cases for image formats. There is no law that there has to be one format to rule them all, how inconvenient that may be. E.g. some users might want to edit and encode extremely high resolution images on their embedded smartphones with weak processing power. They might not care if their images are 5% larger, they don't want their friends to wait for the encode to finish so that they can make another picture. Other users might only encode an image once and then distribute it to millions of users. 5% improvement in bandwidth cost might be quite significant here. On the other hand, they have lots of and computational resources to throw at making the optimal image. Can both use cases be served by the same format? Maybe. Maybe JPEG XL is that format. But these use cases came up as computers became embedded so you could carry them around, and as websites sprung up with billions of visitors. This is a development of the last 20 years. Often the response to such developments is an increase in complexity: more formats, more tools, etc.