3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.