4 ms·

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33383880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33383880 If I were a competitor browser vendor, I'd ret

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33383880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33383880 If I were a competitor browser vendor, I'd retaliate by removing Webp and AVIF support. But of course, who are we kidding? There are no competitors, only paint jobs and a dog on leash.

mort96 4y ago
Why? The other browser vendors don't ship JPEG-XL either, and all the other browser vendors are fully on board with AVIF. Why would it be in their interest to remove AVIF support?
- kasabali 4y ago
  It wouldn't be in their interest, but wouldn't be in their disinterest, either. Thus why it'd be an appropriate retaliation... in a hypothetical competitive environment... which we don't have. Because as I said, only paint jobs and a leash dog.
  - mort96 4y ago
    It is in the entire web community's interest to have a good, non-patent-encumbered, open image (and video) encoding standard. Killing off the only shot we currently have at that seems to be in the disinterest of the minority browser vendors. People are speculating that this is in preparation of Google introducing their own Google-controlled replacement for JPEG-XL, or pushing WebP harder. I don't know if I buy that, but the more widespread AVIF is, the less power does Google have to unilaterally develop a replacement. And it's in the other vendors' disinterest to give Google unilateral control over even more of the web.
    - kasabali 4y ago
      JPEG-XL is a > good, non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard yet they won't be supporting it. Whether you want to buy it or not, de-facto format on the web is JPEG and only JPEG, thanks to the historical momentum. Even webp is still expendable, because Mozilla and Microsoft hold long enough. And AVIF isn't being used anywhere, yet. So no, it isn't in other vendors' disinterest to drop support for Webp and AVIF, because JPEG would continue to be de-facto in that case.
      - mort96 4y ago
        Of course JPEG-XL is a good, (maybe?) non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard, but with this move from Google, it's no longer a candidate to be a universal one (unless Google reverses their decision when the reference implementation library becomes more mature). AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard.
        kasabali 4y ago
        > AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard. Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status. And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.
        mort96 4y ago
        Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG as the ubiquitous standard than to replace it with a technically superior but equally open alternative? I'm not understanding what you want, or who you think gains something by shooting down the best candidate to replace JPEG.
        kasabali 4y ago
        > Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. I'm not talking in business context, I'm talking about in diplomacy context. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque." (and it's not that they'd be losing anything in business context either, by supporting jpeg-only de-facto) I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.

mort96 4y ago

Why? The other browser vendors don't ship JPEG-XL either, and all the other browser vendors are fully on board with AVIF. Why would it be in their interest to remove AVIF support?

kasabali 4y ago
It wouldn't be in their interest, but wouldn't be in their disinterest, either. Thus why it'd be an appropriate retaliation... in a hypothetical competitive environment... which we don't have. Because as I said, only paint jobs and a leash dog.
- mort96 4y ago
  It is in the entire web community's interest to have a good, non-patent-encumbered, open image (and video) encoding standard. Killing off the only shot we currently have at that seems to be in the disinterest of the minority browser vendors. People are speculating that this is in preparation of Google introducing their own Google-controlled replacement for JPEG-XL, or pushing WebP harder. I don't know if I buy that, but the more widespread AVIF is, the less power does Google have to unilaterally develop a replacement. And it's in the other vendors' disinterest to give Google unilateral control over even more of the web.
  - kasabali 4y ago
    JPEG-XL is a > good, non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard yet they won't be supporting it. Whether you want to buy it or not, de-facto format on the web is JPEG and only JPEG, thanks to the historical momentum. Even webp is still expendable, because Mozilla and Microsoft hold long enough. And AVIF isn't being used anywhere, yet. So no, it isn't in other vendors' disinterest to drop support for Webp and AVIF, because JPEG would continue to be de-facto in that case.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Of course JPEG-XL is a good, (maybe?) non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard, but with this move from Google, it's no longer a candidate to be a universal one (unless Google reverses their decision when the reference implementation library becomes more mature). AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard.
      - kasabali 4y ago
        > AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard. Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status. And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.
        mort96 4y ago
        Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG as the ubiquitous standard than to replace it with a technically superior but equally open alternative? I'm not understanding what you want, or who you think gains something by shooting down the best candidate to replace JPEG.
        kasabali 4y ago
        > Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. I'm not talking in business context, I'm talking about in diplomacy context. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque." (and it's not that they'd be losing anything in business context either, by supporting jpeg-only de-facto) I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.