5 ms·

What does Google get out of this?

greener_grass 2y ago
They have a general interest in the quality of the web. More web use is good for Google Ads. This sometimes comes into tension with Google's attempts to control and monetize the web.
- arp242 2y ago
  And at "Google scale" shaving off a few bytes on every request means saving real money.
  - rapsey 2y ago
    Does bandwidth actually cost Google anything?
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > Does bandwidth actually cost Google anything? Latency can cost monetization. Fewer bits at X b/s is fewer seconds.
    - Hendrikto 2y ago
      At the datacenter scale, bandwidth is expensive, yes.
    - arp242 2y ago
      It's not free, no. And servers aren't free either. At "Google scale" 1% or 2% savings can add up to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year. 1% of 100,000 servers is 1,000 servers.
      - JyrkiAlakuijala 2y ago
        My take on this is that junior engineers optimize for the cpu as it is easy to measure, senior engineers for the user experienced latency as it matters more. Users know that their time is valuable. If your website is fast, they will explore it, and came back soon.
mikl 2y ago
A more efficient image format helps everyone on the web. We’re looking at 30-50% fewer bits sent over the wire for the same image quality. Massive bandwith savings for everyone. JPEG-XL is basically a better version of what Google was already trying to do with WebP, and a suitable long-term replacement for all image formats currently in use.
- illiac786 2y ago
  Isn’t video the lion’s share of the internet traffic?
out_of_protocol 2y ago
* much faster decoder/encoder than avif * Much better quality at high bpp (avif performs better at high compression levels, means shitty quality images can be much smaller, while high quality images either don't compress well or loose quality a lot) * Best in class lossless compression, to replace png * Progressive encoding * Ability to losslessly reconvert existing jpegs for 20% free gains
- JyrkiAlakuijala 2y ago
  great analysis and summary of the JPEG XL benefits!
maeln 2y ago
Google Research (which, if I remember correctly had member working on jxl spec and did reference implementation) has much more freedom, and has already been cleared to work on jxl, than the Chrome Team. They also don't have the same goal. Google Research is also responsible for Brotli and Snappy I believe. For all we know, JXL might be super useful, and is actively being used, for some project at Google for X, Y, and Z reasons, but the Chrome team doesn't want to add it to the browser for A, B, and C reasons. Google does many thing.

They have a general interest in the quality of the web. More web use is good for Google Ads. This sometimes comes into tension with Google's attempts to control and monetize the web.

arp242 2y ago
And at "Google scale" shaving off a few bytes on every request means saving real money.
- rapsey 2y ago
  Does bandwidth actually cost Google anything?
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > Does bandwidth actually cost Google anything? Latency can cost monetization. Fewer bits at X b/s is fewer seconds.
  - Hendrikto 2y ago
    At the datacenter scale, bandwidth is expensive, yes.
  - arp242 2y ago
    It's not free, no. And servers aren't free either. At "Google scale" 1% or 2% savings can add up to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year. 1% of 100,000 servers is 1,000 servers.
    - JyrkiAlakuijala 2y ago
      My take on this is that junior engineers optimize for the cpu as it is easy to measure, senior engineers for the user experienced latency as it matters more. Users know that their time is valuable. If your website is fast, they will explore it, and came back soon.

mikl 2y ago

A more efficient image format helps everyone on the web. We’re looking at 30-50% fewer bits sent over the wire for the same image quality. Massive bandwith savings for everyone. JPEG-XL is basically a better version of what Google was already trying to do with WebP, and a suitable long-term replacement for all image formats currently in use.

illiac786 2y ago
Isn’t video the lion’s share of the internet traffic?

out_of_protocol 2y ago

* much faster decoder/encoder than avif * Much better quality at high bpp (avif performs better at high compression levels, means shitty quality images can be much smaller, while high quality images either don't compress well or loose quality a lot) * Best in class lossless compression, to replace png * Progressive encoding * Ability to losslessly reconvert existing jpegs for 20% free gains

JyrkiAlakuijala 2y ago
great analysis and summary of the JPEG XL benefits!

maeln 2y ago

Google Research (which, if I remember correctly had member working on jxl spec and did reference implementation) has much more freedom, and has already been cleared to work on jxl, than the Chrome Team. They also don't have the same goal. Google Research is also responsible for Brotli and Snappy I believe. For all we know, JXL might be super useful, and is actively being used, for some project at Google for X, Y, and Z reasons, but the Chrome team doesn't want to add it to the browser for A, B, and C reasons. Google does many thing.