7 ms·
Do we know why they chose to remove it? I can't see any rationale posted on the linked page, or the comment threads it links to. Maybe I missed it though.
by vonbon 4y ago
Do we know why they chose to remove it?
I can't see any rationale posted on the linked page, or the comment threads it links to. Maybe I missed it though.
- nikanj 4y agoIt was no longer unstable beta
- shaicoleman 4y agoThe reasons stated are: - Experimental flags and code should not remain indefinitely - There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL - The new image format does not bring sufficient incremental benefits over existing formats to warrant enabling it by default - By removing the flag and the code in M110, it reduces the maintenance burden and allows us to focus on improving existing formats in Chrome https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reasons https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reason...
- vonbon 4y agoThanks, that all sounds fairly reasonable then.
- gsich 4y agoNot really. It was hidden behind a flag, so where should the "entire ecosystem" (who?) show interest?
- vonbon 4y agoCouldn't any interested parties just enable the flag for testing? That doesn't seem a insurmountable challenge, given that the code is, or was, already in there.
- hmry 4y agoWell, I am interested in saving server bandwidth by delivering smaller image files at the same quality. I can't enable a flag on my user's browsers though. :)
- sk65535 4y agoyou know, industry / browser people talk to each other. But not necessary on social media. Or publicly.
- croes 4y agoYep, and they wanted support for JPEG XL
- phillipseamore 4y agoThe ecosystem are the other browser vendors.
- usefulcat 4y ago..who together compose what, like 10% of the browser market?
- phillipseamore 4y agoAt 100% depending on the platform. For years many have complained about Chrome moving too fast and shipping stuff without a consensus with the other vendors, this might signal a change from that.
- Dylan16807 4y agoWaiting for consensus from other browsers while ignoring consensus from the broader software industry is not what most people meant.
- iggldiggl 4y agoBy that logic WebP should have never got out of the door, because all non-Chromium browsers were explicitly reticent in implementing support for it and only finally started doing so with several years delay (in the case of Apple several years even more). But of course WebP was Google's own image format…
- phillipseamore 4y agoIt took the other browsers up to a decade to support WebP, who wants to do that again? JPEG-XL is based on the Google Pik proposal among other things and they were active in the spec'ing - there is no conspiracy here.
- iggldiggl 4y agoYes, fair enough, parts of Google contributed to JPEG-XL, too. But the basic gist remains – for WebP they decided it was the greatest thing since slice bread and enabled it regardless of what the rest of the "ecosystem" thought, whereas now all of a sudden they're supposedly that much concerned, even though Chrome is by far and large the majority of that ecosystem, Apple prefers their own format choices anyway, and it's not as if it's not also a chicken-and-egg situation.
- zppln 4y agoSeems to have been partly based on this: https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html
- vonbon 4y agoThanks for the link. That does look quite damning, seems that the already-supported AVIF format is overall the better choice based on these metrics.
- jonsneyers 4y agoActually, the results of the AVIF team's comparison do show the value of JPEG XL, if you look a bit further than the main page and dig into the actual plots. E.g. according to this plot, JXL is about 15% better than AVIF for 'web quality' images (around 1 bpp): https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset1/rateplots/subset1_avif-jxl_t-1_avif-s7_jxl-s6_ssimulacra2__bpp-0.1-3.0.png https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/images/subset... Here is a detailed analysis: https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons
- zppln 4y agoKeep in mind that it's from the AVIF team though. :)
- JyrkiAlakuijala 4y agoTry to replicate it.
- aidenn0 4y agoI have a moderate sized selection of mostly B&W comics. JXL is the first format that out performs JPEG 2000 on them. It cleans AVIF's clock on them, in a rather unfair comparison of JXL's default settings vs hand tuned settings for AVIF with different settings for color and B&W comics. It also far outperforms an optipng encoded PNG for lossless. I know either my corpus or my eyeball is different from the benchmarks used by AVIF but I do want to share this outlier.
- simplotek 4y ago> Do we know why they chose to remove it? Phoenix had an article on why Google decided to remove JPEG-XL. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reasons https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reason... The official justification seems to be a) experimental nature of JPEG-XL, b) lack of demand, c) maintenance burden. Take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't buy it.
- mariusmg 4y ago>experimental nature of JPEG-XL I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard. So if it's already standardized, how the heck is still "experimental" ? https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html
- JyrkiAlakuijala 4y agoJPEG XL was implemented in Chrome behind a flag. Other than that there is nothing experimental in JPEG XL.
- simplotek 4y ago> I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard. I see there's some confusion. A specification might be formalized in an international standard, but implementations of said standard can and often are experimental. You don't magically turn code production-ready by having a committee sign off on a document.
- masklinn 4y ago> I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard. So were JPEG-XR and MJPEG2000.
- quikee 4y agoand neither of your examples is experimental
- thrillgore 4y agoIt competes with WebP?
- arglebargle123 4y agoThis seems vaguely familiar, I wonder where I've seen another dominant browser vendor engage in anticompetitive behaviour before?
- pornel 4y agoGoogle has added AVIF. In both cases the reason was that they've already invested in the video codec powering them, and the 1-frame-video-as-image format was almost free to add.
- jonsneyers 4y agoThis "two for one" reasoning does have some downsides though. Here I listed ten of them: https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1596965036131426304?s=20&t=oxcF-CVm00dHpSWR1pgHsQ https://twitter.com/jonsneyers/status/1596965036131426304?s=...