4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThat's exactly what I don't understand I suppose. AVIF has nothing to do with Google, so I'm not sure why it's a retaliation. Dropping support for WebP and WebM would be more of a retaliation, since those are actually formats developed and pushed by Google. But Google has nothing to lose and everything to gain if other browsers kill AVIF and leave WebP as the only JPEG replacement. But alright, I will move on. You don't have to respond.
- kasabali 4y ago> AVIF has nothing to do with Google, That's where we disagree, then.