4 ms·

JPEG XL is a file format for large raster images that provides a better compression ratio and higher quality than JPEG. Google owns the license to another prop

by devmor 3y ago

JPEG XL is a file format for large raster images that provides a better compression ratio and higher quality than JPEG. Google owns the license to another proprietary image format for large raster images (WEBP). Google used to support JPEG XL in chromium, but dropped support for it. Many people believe this is specifically to manipulate a market advantage for WEBP.

chrismorgan 3y ago
> Google used to support JPEG XL in chromium No, they had an experimental implementation, behind a flag. No stable version of Chromium has ever supported JPEG XL. (The claimed reasons for the removal: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805.... This is the last comment by an @chromium.org account.)
- altairprime 3y ago
  Those reasons, lifted from the wasteland of the bug linked: - 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
jonatron 3y ago
What about WebP is proprietary?
- spiralpolitik 3y ago
  Only Google can make changes to the WebP specification and can do so unilaterally. The JPEG-XL specification is governed by a recognized standards body (ISO).
  - sergiotapia 3y ago
    Why is this downvoted, is it false?
    - postalrat 3y ago
      Most downvotes are from people who want to silence others.
    - magicalist 3y ago
      > Why is this downvoted, is it false? Yes. webp was finalized years ago and webp2 was cancelled in favor of everyone working together on AV1/AVIF.
arp242 3y ago
WebP has a patent license and anyone can use it. People have been using and implementing it for over a decade, without problems. WebP also isn't even comparable to JPEG XL: it's the "old next-gen" image format – it's between WebP and AVIF. There is just no incentive for Google to push for WebP: they have nothing to gain by it. Chrome never properly supported JPEG XL; it was hidden behind a feature flag, which of course almost no one enables. Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users". Supporting as few as possible image formats is essentially a good thing for everyone; see e.g. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=libpng https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=libpng Google has banked on AVIF, which has quite a bit more traction. I do think that JPEG XL would be a good addition, but I also think it's reasonable to have a different opinion on that. Everything about this post is wrong. The "many people who believe" this are engaging in nonsensical conspiratorial thinking without any evidence, which is pretty much what I've come to expect on HN about anything Google-related.
- orra 3y ago
  > Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users". It's possible to sandbox these things. Firefox sandboxes some native libs, by compiling to WebAssembly, then back to C.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I don't know if Chrome has a feature like that, but if it does it doesn't seem to have been used for the libjxl integration. Lots of things are possible in principle; it's also possible to write rs-libjxl which would significantly reduce the problem. But there's a difference between "what's possible" and "what the reality is today", and in the context of what the situation is today it seems to me the concerns are valid.
- devmor 3y ago
  > WebP also isn't even comparable to JPEG XL: it's the "old next-gen" image format – it's between WebP and AVIF. This is a nonsense statement of opinion. AVIF is severely more computationally expensive than JPEG XL (over 100 times worse at high bitrates), limited to 4k resolution, has worse compression, and is missing desirable features like progressive decoding and lossless recompression. > There is just no incentive for Google to push for WebP: they have nothing to gain by it. They have complete control over the standard. No one else can make changes to it without their approval. JPEG XL is governed by ISO.
izacus 3y ago
You're misleading with comparison to WebP - the image format all browser vendors supported (including Chrome, Mozilla, Safari and Microsoft) that competes with JPEG XL is AVIF.

by devmor 3y ago

chrismorgan 3y ago

> Google used to support JPEG XL in chromium No, they had an experimental implementation, behind a flag. No stable version of Chromium has ever supported JPEG XL. (The claimed reasons for the removal: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805.... This is the last comment by an @chromium.org account.)

altairprime 3y ago
Those reasons, lifted from the wasteland of the bug linked: - 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

jonatron 3y ago

What about WebP is proprietary?

spiralpolitik 3y ago
Only Google can make changes to the WebP specification and can do so unilaterally. The JPEG-XL specification is governed by a recognized standards body (ISO).
- sergiotapia 3y ago
  Why is this downvoted, is it false?
  - postalrat 3y ago
    Most downvotes are from people who want to silence others.
  - magicalist 3y ago
    > Why is this downvoted, is it false? Yes. webp was finalized years ago and webp2 was cancelled in favor of everyone working together on AV1/AVIF.

arp242 3y ago

WebP has a patent license and anyone can use it. People have been using and implementing it for over a decade, without problems. WebP also isn't even comparable to JPEG XL: it's the "old next-gen" image format – it's between WebP and AVIF. There is just no incentive for Google to push for WebP: they have nothing to gain by it. Chrome never properly supported JPEG XL; it was hidden behind a feature flag, which of course almost no one enables. Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users". Supporting as few as possible image formats is essentially a good thing for everyone; see e.g. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=libpng https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=libpng Google has banked on AVIF, which has quite a bit more traction. I do think that JPEG XL would be a good addition, but I also think it's reasonable to have a different opinion on that. Everything about this post is wrong. The "many people who believe" this are engaging in nonsensical conspiratorial thinking without any evidence, which is pretty much what I've come to expect on HN about anything Google-related.

orra 3y ago
> Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users". It's possible to sandbox these things. Firefox sandboxes some native libs, by compiling to WebAssembly, then back to C.
- arp242 3y ago
  I don't know if Chrome has a feature like that, but if it does it doesn't seem to have been used for the libjxl integration. Lots of things are possible in principle; it's also possible to write rs-libjxl which would significantly reduce the problem. But there's a difference between "what's possible" and "what the reality is today", and in the context of what the situation is today it seems to me the concerns are valid.
devmor 3y ago
> WebP also isn't even comparable to JPEG XL: it's the "old next-gen" image format – it's between WebP and AVIF. This is a nonsense statement of opinion. AVIF is severely more computationally expensive than JPEG XL (over 100 times worse at high bitrates), limited to 4k resolution, has worse compression, and is missing desirable features like progressive decoding and lossless recompression. > There is just no incentive for Google to push for WebP: they have nothing to gain by it. They have complete control over the standard. No one else can make changes to it without their approval. JPEG XL is governed by ISO.

izacus 3y ago

You're misleading with comparison to WebP - the image format all browser vendors supported (including Chrome, Mozilla, Safari and Microsoft) that competes with JPEG XL is AVIF.