3 ms·
> Look at poor webp What about it? "Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality le
by dev_l1x_be 1y ago
> Look at poor webp
What about it?
"Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality levels"
This literally saves houndred of thousand of cost, bandwith, electricity every month on the internet. In fact, I strongly belive that this is one of the greatest contributions from Google to society just like ZSTD from Facebook.
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study
- Timwi 1y agoI don't think the commenter you replied to disagrees with any of that. They were talking about poor rates of adoption, not its feature set.
- dev_l1x_be 1y agoThe biggest driver of adoption are features. "WebP is used by 16.7% of all websites. This means that while it's a popular image format, it's not yet the dominant format, with JPEG still holding the majority share at 73.0%, according to W3Techs. However, WebP offers significant advantages in terms of compression and file size, making it a preferred choice for many web developers. "
- poisonborz 1y agoSociety wholeheartedly thanks Google for saving costs for Google
- dev_l1x_be 1y agoIt saved money for our company too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Mr_Minderbinder 1y agoThose numbers are from Google. Third parties have not found WebP to be as good as Google claims.
- account42 1y ago> equivalent quality levels Therein lies the lie. Image and video compression comparisons are like statistics with the right corpus and evaluation criteria you can should whatever narrative you want to push.