4 ms·

The only way to strip Chrome of their monopoly power is to remove their decisionmaking mattering: Switch all your stuff on your websites to JXL, let Chrome prov

The only way to strip Chrome of their monopoly power is to remove their decisionmaking mattering: Switch all your stuff on your websites to JXL, let Chrome provide a bad experience, and then it's up to them if they fix it.

jraph 3y ago
Sadly, unless many webmasters do it, it'll likely feel like "your site is broken" instead of "Chrome is broken" to users. Maybe with a banner like "You are using Chrome. You might have a degraded experience due to the lack of support for better image formats. Consider Firefox".
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  Provide alternative formats, making the browser autoselect. Or provide a JXL polyfill. In either case: Have Chrome telemetry report home that "user could have 20% faster page load with JXL support".
  - wolpoli 3y ago
    JXL polyfill is definitely the way to go to force Chrome's hand.
    - alwillis 3y ago
      It’s not going to force Google’s hand. Using a polyfill will slow page loads and adds additional fragility. Nothing changes for Chrome users, especially sites using the <picture> element where the first supported image format is used.
      - worrycue 3y ago
        It will slow page loads for Chrome and browsers not supporting it but it will be blazing fast on Safari. You keep the file size savings and high image quality. I’m sure YouTubers and tech sites will love to do Safari vs Chrome (and Co.) content to spread the message that Chrome is inferior.
- Zen1th 3y ago
  Feels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. IMO, the sad truth is that what will happen is that JXL simply won't be used because it's not worth it to lose customers in exchange for a few kilobytes saved. Google has won, it has a monopoly on search, advertisement and the browser and decides de facto of all standards.
  - yboris 3y ago
    Chrome did not settle things with its decision to not use JXL at this time. (WASM) Polyfill and we're done.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > Feels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. Any resemblance with previous events would be totally unintentional, of course :-)

jraph 3y ago

Sadly, unless many webmasters do it, it'll likely feel like "your site is broken" instead of "Chrome is broken" to users. Maybe with a banner like "You are using Chrome. You might have a degraded experience due to the lack of support for better image formats. Consider Firefox".

pgeorgi 3y ago
Provide alternative formats, making the browser autoselect. Or provide a JXL polyfill. In either case: Have Chrome telemetry report home that "user could have 20% faster page load with JXL support".
- wolpoli 3y ago
  JXL polyfill is definitely the way to go to force Chrome's hand.
  - alwillis 3y ago
    It’s not going to force Google’s hand. Using a polyfill will slow page loads and adds additional fragility. Nothing changes for Chrome users, especially sites using the <picture> element where the first supported image format is used.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      It will slow page loads for Chrome and browsers not supporting it but it will be blazing fast on Safari. You keep the file size savings and high image quality. I’m sure YouTubers and tech sites will love to do Safari vs Chrome (and Co.) content to spread the message that Chrome is inferior.
Zen1th 3y ago
Feels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. IMO, the sad truth is that what will happen is that JXL simply won't be used because it's not worth it to lose customers in exchange for a few kilobytes saved. Google has won, it has a monopoly on search, advertisement and the browser and decides de facto of all standards.
- yboris 3y ago
  Chrome did not settle things with its decision to not use JXL at this time. (WASM) Polyfill and we're done.
- jraph 3y ago
  > Feels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. Any resemblance with previous events would be totally unintentional, of course :-)