4 ms·
Good compression for web images. I converted the images on my website to webp and saw a huge reduction in filesizes with virtually no loss in quality, but it st
by voidUpdate 2y ago
Good compression for web images. I converted the images on my website to webp and saw a huge reduction in filesizes with virtually no loss in quality, but it still keeps an alpha channel unlike jpg
- oguz-ismail 2y ago[flagged]
- voidUpdate 2y agoDepending on where you are and what mobile data plan you have, bandwidth is not always cheap. And I don't see the problem in trying to reduce the amount of data sent, which is one of the reasons I don't fill my website with megabytes of javascript libraries
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago> Storage is cheap, bandwidth is cheap, so who cares? That may be true sometimes, but it isn't true all the time. Even if it's "cheap", smaller files load faster.
- web007 2y ago> Storage is cheap, bandwidth is cheap, so who cares? This is a ridiculous assertion. They're both cheap in the commercial sense, but neither cheap nor infinite in the UX sense. Time and space matter in the real world. Google wouldn't have created WebP if there was no tangible, measurable cost benefit to using it over some alternative. Same goes for H.264 or HEVC or AV1, at scale bandwidth and storage are far from cheap. See the article on the FP today about Google's double-digit EXAbyte storage clusters with 50TB/s read volume each as a real-world example, there's nothing cheap about that.