4 ms·
So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 comp
by brucethemoose2 3y ago
So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year...
Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.
- nathan_phoenix 3y agoCan't lose the edge to Tim Apple...
- petecooper 3y ago>[E]dge There's a browser joke here somewhere, I'm sure.
- rizky05 3y ago[dead]
- jsnell 3y agoOf course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viability of getting the format universally supported.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoNone of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.
- mschuster91 3y agoGoogle has enough moat via the Chrome, Chrome-derivative browser and Youtube client marketshare to push through a new format virtually everywhere outside the Apple ecosystem.
- doublepg23 3y agoYet WebP support is still pretty dreadful.
- chungy 3y agoDreadful where? In this day and age, WebP is supported by every browser, I can browse them comfortably in my file manager and basically every image-related program can open and edit them (I'm running GNOME on Arch). Where is it lacking? I'm not a fan of WebP, mind, but the idea that support for it is dreadful is strange to me.
- wpm 3y agoI think was less than a year ago that OBS got support for webp. Just about the same for Photoshop. Plenty of software still doesn’t support it or support it well. Glad your experience has been good. Personally, the fact that it was Googles idea means I’m going to hold it at arms length, if not avoid it entirely. The web should be built on open standards.
- chungy 3y agoI was using WebP-lossless for quite a few years, for the subset of images I had that fit within WebP's limitations (being the 16383×16383 dimensions and 32 bpp color depth). I've recently converted everything to JPEG XL. Old JPEGs got losslessly transformed, and both PNGs and WebP-lossless into lossless JPEG XL. Seems to be a similar level of "works everywhere" for me, with the exception of web browsers this time.
- jsnell 3y agoRight, WebP was almost certainly a mistake in hindsight. Whatever advantages it had weren't worth a decade of ecosystem fragmentation. Isn't learning from mistakes and not repeating them a good thing? I don't think AVIF is a good example of this though. All major browser makers were members of the consortium that created AVIF.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoOn the contrary, the webp push didn't really hurt anything... there were (IIRC) no major exploits related to it, and it sees some use. I wouldn't say it was a mistake. But it was a tremendous amount of effort and promotion on Google's end for a relatively narrow format.
- TeaDude 3y agoI would seriously disagree. Plenty of CMSes switched all their photos to webp resulting in a huge loss in quality.
- altairprime 3y ago[flagged]
- brucethemoose2 3y agoIts not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization.
- altairprime 3y ago> It's not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization. These facts support my point: the issue filed as linked above correctly cites one of those statements of support, without resorting to outrage, and has been successful at getting Chromium team's attention to the matter. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1451807#c17 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=145180... (Note that I wasn't able to identify any viewpoints or opinions in your reply, other than the facts discussed above. If that's an oversight, I'm happy to revisit.)
- worrycue 3y agoWhat’s outrageous is Google’s BS reasoning for dropping the format. They claim lack of interest when they (and Firefox) have been hiding JPEGXL support behind flags (and nightlies in the case of FireFox) yet WebP and AVIF is fully supported despite their similarly niche status. Chrome’s support for JPEGXL was also already more or less complete when they decided to drop it. Ironically though it has brought a lot of publicity to JPEGXL as “the format Google is trying to kill” in a Streisand effect sort of way. But with Chrome’s dominance that’s not enough to give it a fighting chance until Apple quietly announced support for it.
- altairprime 3y agoI agree. Google’s reasoning cannot be trusted. The decision they made was self-serving and their expressed reasoning was highly misleading.
- omoikane 3y agoI would guess that Apple make business decisions based on metrics that others do not have access to, including those unknown to Google and average internet users.
- asddubs 3y agoactually, given that they now support JPEG XL and AVIF, edge is the most conservative. They sure did take their sweet time with webp, though.
- wpietri 3y agoYeah, Google's top three revenue sources are ads, ads, and ads. (Respectively search, network, and YouTube.) Their customers are advertisers. Chrome's job (and Android's) is to make sure they retain control of sufficient surface area to place ads. Chrome user opinion to them is important to their business in about the same way meatpackers care about what cattle think of the design of the feeding stations. As long as they keep coming to eat, it's just mooing.
- stephenr 3y ago> As long as they keep coming to eat, it's just mooing. I love this phrase thank you.
- coldpie 3y agoAdding new image format support to a web browser is not a small change.
- MaxBarraclough 3y agoIt's not a 5 minute job, sure, but compared to something like WebGPU it's tiny.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y agoit adds 185 kB of compressed binary size -- probably by compressing the graphics that come along Chromium will 10x counter the added weight and it will actually save size
- gorlilla 3y agoAnd surely doesnt come with any security baggage.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoIt was already implemented, and gated behind a flag.
- DannyBee 3y agoUh? This is just a random request on a bug tracker that someone is triaging the same way they triage all other things?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoYeah, it's barely a response at all. But it still more of a response than Google has given in ages.
- ksec 3y agoI dont think anything has changed. JPEG XL being supported by Apple would only be 20% of user world wide. Assuming every one uses it. According to the initial Google thread this is likely not considered as high enough interest. With Google's study [1], by Google's Engineer, JPEG XL is no where near good enough compared to AVIF. None of the above facts have changed since Google Chrome's decision on JPEG XL. /S [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html