3 ms·
Google haven’t explicitly decided to block adoption of JPEG XL. They removed an incomplete implementation from Chromium which had never been shipped, because it
by chrismorgan 3y ago
Google haven’t explicitly decided to block adoption of JPEG XL. They removed an incomplete implementation from Chromium which had never been shipped, because it was a maintenance burden and they weren’t ready to commit to supporting it. That’s quite a different thing. It may indicate a broader strategic direction, but it doesn’t necessarily.
- lakpan 3y agoI want to believe. Having an immediate upgrade path to all pictures from the past is too good an opportunity to pass up. We rarely get a free “compress losslessly” button for our archives.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoThat charitable interpretation would have been okay unless the Chrome team (yes, "Google" is not a single entity here) tried to publish a faulty benchmark [1] that has been thoroughly criticized [2] which never has been answered so far. [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html [2] https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons
- nicoburns 3y agoYeah, I'm quite hopeful that this is one where the developer backlash will cause a U-turn. I suspect it was seen as something that most people didn't care about, and now that it's clear that they do then likely something will be done about. I can't see any reason why Google would be strongly against it's inclusion.
- RedShift1 3y agoThe called it technically inferior based on opinions. They didn't do a thorough technical review, and why would they, they have webp. This was absolutely a strategical thing, it's naive to think it isn't.