4 ms·

> [...] other large companies that would be exposed to law suits related to these patents (Apple, Adobe, etc.) [...] Adobe included JPEG XL support to their pr

> [...] other large companies that would be exposed to law suits related to these patents (Apple, Adobe, etc.) [...] Adobe included JPEG XL support to their products and also the DNG specification. So that argument is pretty much dead, no?

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Not that simple. Maybe they struck a deal with a few of the companies or they made a different risk calculation. And of course they have a pretty fierce patent portfolio themselves so there's the notion of them being able to retaliate in kind to some of these companies.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  I don't think that's true (see my other comment for what the patent is really about), but even when it is, Adobe's adoption means that JPEG XL is worth the supposed "risk". And Google does ship a lot of technologies that are clearly patent-encumbered. If the patent is the main concern, they could have answered so because there are enough people wondering about the patent status, but the Chrome team's main reason against JPEG XL was quite different.
izacus 3y ago
Adobe also has an order of magnitude lower number of installed software than Chrome or Firefox which makes patent fees much cheaper. And their software is actually paid for by users.
- spider-mario 3y ago
  DNG Converter (which includes JPEG XL compression) isn’t paid. You can get it here: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter.html https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter...
luma 3y ago
Adobe sells paid products and can carve out a license fee for that, like they do with all the other codecs and libraries they bundle. That's part of the price you are paying. Harder to do for users of Chrome.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  The same thing can be said with many patent-encumbered video codecs which Chrome does support nevertheless. That alone can't be a major deciding factor, especially given that the rate of JPEG XL adoption has been remarkably faster than any recent media format.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Is this not simply a risk vs reward calculation? Newer video codecs present a very notable bandwidth saving over old ones. JPEG XL presents minor benefits over WebP, AVIF, etc. So while the dangers are the same for both the calculation is different.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Video = billions lower costs for Youtube.
- spider-mario 3y ago
  You can get Adobe DNG Converter for free and use it to convert your raw files to DNG compressed with JPEG XL. https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/camera-raw/digital-negative/jcr_content/root/content/flex/items/position/position-par/download_section/download-1/dng_converter_commandline.pdf https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/camera-raw/digit...

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Not that simple. Maybe they struck a deal with a few of the companies or they made a different risk calculation. And of course they have a pretty fierce patent portfolio themselves so there's the notion of them being able to retaliate in kind to some of these companies.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
I don't think that's true (see my other comment for what the patent is really about), but even when it is, Adobe's adoption means that JPEG XL is worth the supposed "risk". And Google does ship a lot of technologies that are clearly patent-encumbered. If the patent is the main concern, they could have answered so because there are enough people wondering about the patent status, but the Chrome team's main reason against JPEG XL was quite different.

izacus 3y ago

Adobe also has an order of magnitude lower number of installed software than Chrome or Firefox which makes patent fees much cheaper. And their software is actually paid for by users.

spider-mario 3y ago
DNG Converter (which includes JPEG XL compression) isn’t paid. You can get it here: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter.html https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter...

luma 3y ago

Adobe sells paid products and can carve out a license fee for that, like they do with all the other codecs and libraries they bundle. That's part of the price you are paying. Harder to do for users of Chrome.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
The same thing can be said with many patent-encumbered video codecs which Chrome does support nevertheless. That alone can't be a major deciding factor, especially given that the rate of JPEG XL adoption has been remarkably faster than any recent media format.
- afavour 3y ago
  Is this not simply a risk vs reward calculation? Newer video codecs present a very notable bandwidth saving over old ones. JPEG XL presents minor benefits over WebP, AVIF, etc. So while the dangers are the same for both the calculation is different.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Video = billions lower costs for Youtube.
spider-mario 3y ago
You can get Adobe DNG Converter for free and use it to convert your raw files to DNG compressed with JPEG XL. https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/camera-raw/digital-negative/jcr_content/root/content/flex/items/position/position-par/download_section/download-1/dng_converter_commandline.pdf https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/camera-raw/digit...