4 ms·

Google has 90% of the market. They are the industry.

izacus 4y ago
So they're now forced to maintain every single format someone invents, keep it compatible and security patched forever? Even though even FOSS champion Mozilla wouldn't touch it?
- ksec 4y ago
  >So they're now forced to maintain every single format someone invents, Or they could pick a better format and evaluate it? The question is why the better format here, even though it is the same royalty free ( or patents free in AOM's term ), wasn't picked.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    They could. They could also choose to not to. They could also have done it and their set of reasons doesn’t align with yours. They’re a private company. They can choose to do whatever they want or don’t want to. If they don’t want to support JPEGXL, why should they be forced to do it? If it was such a necessary format, it would have been a competitive disadvantage to not have support and that would have forced their hand, but nobody else supports it either so why should Google be forced to if they (clearly) don’t want to.
    - ksec 4y ago
      They dont have to. But they could also not lie about it. Or lie about do no evil ( I know that is no longer their motto ). Or they could also not lie about WebP, AOM or AMP or everything else about being Good.
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I mean they could do all those things, but, once again, they don’t have to. They don’t have a responsibility to anyone but their shareholders and therefore bottom line.
- toyg 4y ago
  They definitely have a responsibility to shepherd standards that show potential to do good for the internet.
- illiarian 4y ago
  They have no reservations when its their own formats and they force others to implement them on pain of removing essential apps like Youtube.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Big surprise.
  - jsnell 4y ago
    JPEG XL is one of their own formats!
    - illiarian 4y ago
      Then it's internal politics at play. Or perhaps image codecs are not as important to Google. E.g. Android TV now requires hardware support for AV1 [1] and Google threatened Roku that Rouku would lose Youtube support if it didn't support AV1 in hardware [2] [1] https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/av1-android-14-requirement https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/av1-android-14-requiremen... [2] https://www.protocol.com/youtube-tv-roku-issues https://www.protocol.com/youtube-tv-roku-issues
      - neurostimulant 4y ago
        What funny is google's own chromecast hardware doesn't support av1, yet they require their competitors to support it. https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media
robin_reala 4y ago
They definitely don’t. Globally they don’t even touch 70%, and if you look at specific markets like the US they only just hit 50%.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  this depends a lot on how you count. edge and Samsung Internet are both just reskinned chrome. Safari, Firefox and Opera Hot sound 20%, but that's almost all Safari, and Apple still wants to pretend that their special image format is relevant.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    Edge isn’t just reskinned Chrome when it comes to image formats: they deliberately don’t support AVIF for example. https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif
    - markdog12 4y ago
      Interesting, why not? Found this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge-support-avif-images https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge...

So they're now forced to maintain every single format someone invents, keep it compatible and security patched forever? Even though even FOSS champion Mozilla wouldn't touch it?

ksec 4y ago
>So they're now forced to maintain every single format someone invents, Or they could pick a better format and evaluate it? The question is why the better format here, even though it is the same royalty free ( or patents free in AOM's term ), wasn't picked.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  They could. They could also choose to not to. They could also have done it and their set of reasons doesn’t align with yours. They’re a private company. They can choose to do whatever they want or don’t want to. If they don’t want to support JPEGXL, why should they be forced to do it? If it was such a necessary format, it would have been a competitive disadvantage to not have support and that would have forced their hand, but nobody else supports it either so why should Google be forced to if they (clearly) don’t want to.
  - ksec 4y ago
    They dont have to. But they could also not lie about it. Or lie about do no evil ( I know that is no longer their motto ). Or they could also not lie about WebP, AOM or AMP or everything else about being Good.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      I mean they could do all those things, but, once again, they don’t have to. They don’t have a responsibility to anyone but their shareholders and therefore bottom line.
toyg 4y ago
They definitely have a responsibility to shepherd standards that show potential to do good for the internet.
illiarian 4y ago
They have no reservations when its their own formats and they force others to implement them on pain of removing essential apps like Youtube.
- izacus 4y ago
  Big surprise.
- jsnell 4y ago
  JPEG XL is one of their own formats!
  - illiarian 4y ago
    Then it's internal politics at play. Or perhaps image codecs are not as important to Google. E.g. Android TV now requires hardware support for AV1 [1] and Google threatened Roku that Rouku would lose Youtube support if it didn't support AV1 in hardware [2] [1] https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/av1-android-14-requirement https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/av1-android-14-requiremen... [2] https://www.protocol.com/youtube-tv-roku-issues https://www.protocol.com/youtube-tv-roku-issues
    - neurostimulant 4y ago
      What funny is google's own chromecast hardware doesn't support av1, yet they require their competitors to support it. https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/media

robin_reala 4y ago

They definitely don’t. Globally they don’t even touch 70%, and if you look at specific markets like the US they only just hit 50%.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
this depends a lot on how you count. edge and Samsung Internet are both just reskinned chrome. Safari, Firefox and Opera Hot sound 20%, but that's almost all Safari, and Apple still wants to pretend that their special image format is relevant.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  Edge isn’t just reskinned Chrome when it comes to image formats: they deliberately don’t support AVIF for example. https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif
  - markdog12 4y ago
    Interesting, why not? Found this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge-support-avif-images https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge...