4 ms·

With the only justification being "nobody wanted it", a plainly false statement. WebP isn't good enough. AVIF isn't good enough. JPEG XL is good enough.

by chungy 3y ago

jbverschoor 3y ago
Google is using the wrong tricks to keep marketshare.. I'm not even sure if they know it
Gigachad 3y ago
Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware and software vendors to support it which would be very expensive for not enough gain.
- lonjil 3y ago
  > Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware Which is completely nonsensical. Hardware support is meaningless for web images.
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    Hardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation that sites could use at will to prove that there's demand for JPEG-XL support (and that the Chrome team provides, by the way).
    - lonjil 3y ago
      No it wasn't. WASM implementations are simply slower than native support. No browser uses HW accelerated decode for AVIF images or JXL. I think Safari might use HW for JPEG, but that's it across all browsers.
      - pgeorgi 3y ago
        >> Hardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation > No it wasn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355: "Wasm does not have the hardware acceleration necessary to efficiently do codecs."
    - chungy 3y ago
      There's not much Google can do to stop sites from loading libjxl.wasm.
- cjawdb 3y ago
  More accurately, their justification was based on discredited benchmarks (which used a fairly old-even-at-the-time version of libjxl and IIRC created by the AVIF team)... and the commit to remove support was created by a co-author of WebP who gives talks on WebP and is the primary contributor to libwebp. The Chromium issue where they made this decision is full of "hardware and software vendors" (Adobe, Serif/Affinity, Krita, Facebook, Shopify, Cloudinary, Intel, Nvidia, the VESA DisplayHDR Chairman) telling them they're making a terrible decision and is one of the most-starred and most-commented-on issues of all time for Chromium. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    You certainly have an opinion, but you do also keep leaving out facts that don't particularly support it, both here, and elsewhere. "and the commit to remove support was created by a co-author of WebP who gives talks on WebP and is the primary contributor to libwebp." Google also employs two of the co-authors of JPEG XL, who give talks on JPEG XL, and was were two of the primary contributors to libjxl. The main authors of the JPEG XL specification are Jyrki Alakuijala, Jon Sneyers, and Luca Versari. Jyrki is a Googler. Jon is at Cloudinary. Luca is also at Google. If you are going to try to come up with a silly conspiracy about this being WebP related, it probably would help if this wasn't the case. Maybe consider that they do in fact have the expertise necessary to decide whether JPEG-XL is something they want to do? I mean, seriously. You can disagree with the decision, but your argument that they have no idea what they are doing WRT to JPEG-XL seems pretty silly - the only company who arguably has any better idea would be cloudinary.
    - schrmh 3y ago
      »they do in fact have the expertise necessary to decide whether JPEG-XL is something they want to do?« The problem is that they do have the people with expertise but those were not asked. For example, the AVIF team at Google does not have the expertise — they have proven that publicly (there was a AVIF vs JXL comparison thing that got put out) and later on an response they gave to Sneyers (the response got shared on Discord).
bitwize 3y ago
Now that Apple supports it, people will want it.

With the only justification being "nobody wanted it", a plainly false statement. WebP isn't good enough. AVIF isn't good enough. JPEG XL is good enough.

by chungy 3y ago

With the only justification being "nobody wanted it", a plainly false statement. WebP isn't good enough. AVIF isn't good enough. JPEG XL is good enough.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Google is using the wrong tricks to keep marketshare.. I'm not even sure if they know it

Gigachad 3y ago

Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware and software vendors to support it which would be very expensive for not enough gain.

lonjil 3y ago
> Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware Which is completely nonsensical. Hardware support is meaningless for web images.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  Hardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation that sites could use at will to prove that there's demand for JPEG-XL support (and that the Chrome team provides, by the way).
  - lonjil 3y ago
    No it wasn't. WASM implementations are simply slower than native support. No browser uses HW accelerated decode for AVIF images or JXL. I think Safari might use HW for JPEG, but that's it across all browsers.
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      >> Hardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation > No it wasn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355: "Wasm does not have the hardware acceleration necessary to efficiently do codecs."
  - chungy 3y ago
    There's not much Google can do to stop sites from loading libjxl.wasm.
cjawdb 3y ago
More accurately, their justification was based on discredited benchmarks (which used a fairly old-even-at-the-time version of libjxl and IIRC created by the AVIF team)... and the commit to remove support was created by a co-author of WebP who gives talks on WebP and is the primary contributor to libwebp. The Chromium issue where they made this decision is full of "hardware and software vendors" (Adobe, Serif/Affinity, Krita, Facebook, Shopify, Cloudinary, Intel, Nvidia, the VESA DisplayHDR Chairman) telling them they're making a terrible decision and is one of the most-starred and most-commented-on issues of all time for Chromium. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...
- DannyBee 3y ago
  You certainly have an opinion, but you do also keep leaving out facts that don't particularly support it, both here, and elsewhere. "and the commit to remove support was created by a co-author of WebP who gives talks on WebP and is the primary contributor to libwebp." Google also employs two of the co-authors of JPEG XL, who give talks on JPEG XL, and was were two of the primary contributors to libjxl. The main authors of the JPEG XL specification are Jyrki Alakuijala, Jon Sneyers, and Luca Versari. Jyrki is a Googler. Jon is at Cloudinary. Luca is also at Google. If you are going to try to come up with a silly conspiracy about this being WebP related, it probably would help if this wasn't the case. Maybe consider that they do in fact have the expertise necessary to decide whether JPEG-XL is something they want to do? I mean, seriously. You can disagree with the decision, but your argument that they have no idea what they are doing WRT to JPEG-XL seems pretty silly - the only company who arguably has any better idea would be cloudinary.
  - schrmh 3y ago
    »they do in fact have the expertise necessary to decide whether JPEG-XL is something they want to do?« The problem is that they do have the people with expertise but those were not asked. For example, the AVIF team at Google does not have the expertise — they have proven that publicly (there was a AVIF vs JXL comparison thing that got put out) and later on an response they gave to Sneyers (the response got shared on Discord).

bitwize 3y ago

Now that Apple supports it, people will want it.