6 ms·

The primary complaint here is users don't know what to do with a .webp when they download their photos. And support does seem limited; it looks like Photoshop n

The primary complaint here is users don't know what to do with a .webp when they download their photos. And support does seem limited; it looks like Photoshop needs a plugin, for instance. But Facebook could solve that specific problem by having a real "Download as JPG" button while still using WebP for inline images.

wmf 14y ago
Except Facebook officially does not want people to export anything from Facebook. The ability for browsers to save images was a "bug".
- Total_Meltdown 14y ago
  They seem OK with downloading to me... http://i.imgur.com/wVZCFLm.png http://i.imgur.com/wVZCFLm.png Edit: And if it was a bug, they've taken their sweet time fixing it. I can still right click -> Save Image As.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Indeed. If Facebook is trying to lock users in, a non-patent-encumbered format with a free BSD-licensed reference implementation seems like the wrong way to do it.
oomkiller 14y ago
There is a download link under options for pictures in "theater" mode. I haven't run into any WebP images yet, so I'm not sure if it downloads as jpg or not, but I've read it gives you the jpg link.
- tnorthcutt 14y ago
  In the case of the images linked in the CNet article (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=457095677701847&set=a.457095547701860.1073741825.120666121344806&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=457095677701847&...), it gives you a download link for the jpeg. However, the images in that album are displayed as jpeg (for me), and the only way to view the .webp image is to open in a new tab and add the .webp extension in the url myself.
dfxm12 14y ago
Why does Facebook have to do anything here? Isn't reducing file sizes and load times the right thing to do for them? Shouldn't the burden fall on image viewers/editors? If the format beats out PNG & JPG, the industry will follow and image editors will get built in support. Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Why does Facebook have to do anything here? Because they broke the web for their users. > Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here. Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > Because they broke the web for their users. No, they didn't. The web works fine. They can browse it without any issues. The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines. > Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. Change rarely occurs smoothly.
    - jterce 14y ago
      > The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines. By all means, try to explain that to users if you like, and if you think they'd care. The issue is that it breaks the user experience, whatever technical reason you'd like to attribute that to.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        I'm not explaining anything to the users, I'm just explaining to you how you're wrong when you state that they "broke the web for their users". The users are completely irrelevant, because no matter how much they bitch and moan, they're not going to leave Facebook. Its network effects are too powerful. And so, for once, I actually support Facebook. They're using their dominant market position to push a new standard that is quite good. This will hopefully force companies like Adobe to start adding support for WebP by default. Then we'll finally able to ditch obsolete standards like JPEG and its ilk once and for all.
vlasta2 14y ago
I agree, that pushing WebP now is too soon as almost no image editors support it. I have added latest WebP codec (that also supports animations) into my RealWorld Paint ( http://www.rw-designer.com/image-editor http://www.rw-designer.com/image-editor ) few weeks ago and I doubt anyone else did it since that time. Chrome is really crazy supporting WebP now while it is still immature. Image editors and web server libraries should be the first ones to support WebP, web browsers should be last.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  The basic jpeg-like functionality has been widely available for a while. And as in this case, high traffic websites (often Google's own) that are already re-processing millions of photos and/or images and Chrome are the obvious first places to get a foothold, long before anyone would think about actually editing a webp by hand in photoshop.
wicknicks 14y ago
I feel that this is the reason Facebook is trying such formats. If people have difficulty downloading the photos, they will visit the website more, and share more photos through FB than go through the "download -> edit -> non-facebook sharing medium (email/dropbox)" pipeline.
- lelandbatey 14y ago
  I really don't think that's the chief reason. A very tiny number of Facebook users save images locally as it is, and by switching to webp Facebook really does save them a tremendous amount of money. Also, since webp is an open format, it's not like users can't use very easy converters/viewers to make webp quite usable. I don't feel like this move is significantly more than an economic one.
igrigorik 14y ago
This is slightly orthogonal, but still worth mentioning: there is WebP codec available for Windows, which adds WebP support in explorer and all the other common tools. Download page: https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download

wmf 14y ago

Except Facebook officially does not want people to export anything from Facebook. The ability for browsers to save images was a "bug".

Total_Meltdown 14y ago
They seem OK with downloading to me... http://i.imgur.com/wVZCFLm.png http://i.imgur.com/wVZCFLm.png Edit: And if it was a bug, they've taken their sweet time fixing it. I can still right click -> Save Image As.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Indeed. If Facebook is trying to lock users in, a non-patent-encumbered format with a free BSD-licensed reference implementation seems like the wrong way to do it.

oomkiller 14y ago

There is a download link under options for pictures in "theater" mode. I haven't run into any WebP images yet, so I'm not sure if it downloads as jpg or not, but I've read it gives you the jpg link.

tnorthcutt 14y ago
In the case of the images linked in the CNet article (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=457095677701847&set=a.457095547701860.1073741825.120666121344806&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=457095677701847&...), it gives you a download link for the jpeg. However, the images in that album are displayed as jpeg (for me), and the only way to view the .webp image is to open in a new tab and add the .webp extension in the url myself.

dfxm12 14y ago

Why does Facebook have to do anything here? Isn't reducing file sizes and load times the right thing to do for them? Shouldn't the burden fall on image viewers/editors? If the format beats out PNG & JPG, the industry will follow and image editors will get built in support. Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here.

masklinn 14y ago
> Why does Facebook have to do anything here? Because they broke the web for their users. > Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here. Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Because they broke the web for their users. No, they didn't. The web works fine. They can browse it without any issues. The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines. > Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. Change rarely occurs smoothly.
  - jterce 14y ago
    > The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines. By all means, try to explain that to users if you like, and if you think they'd care. The issue is that it breaks the user experience, whatever technical reason you'd like to attribute that to.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      I'm not explaining anything to the users, I'm just explaining to you how you're wrong when you state that they "broke the web for their users". The users are completely irrelevant, because no matter how much they bitch and moan, they're not going to leave Facebook. Its network effects are too powerful. And so, for once, I actually support Facebook. They're using their dominant market position to push a new standard that is quite good. This will hopefully force companies like Adobe to start adding support for WebP by default. Then we'll finally able to ditch obsolete standards like JPEG and its ilk once and for all.

vlasta2 14y ago

I agree, that pushing WebP now is too soon as almost no image editors support it. I have added latest WebP codec (that also supports animations) into my RealWorld Paint ( http://www.rw-designer.com/image-editor http://www.rw-designer.com/image-editor ) few weeks ago and I doubt anyone else did it since that time. Chrome is really crazy supporting WebP now while it is still immature. Image editors and web server libraries should be the first ones to support WebP, web browsers should be last.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
The basic jpeg-like functionality has been widely available for a while. And as in this case, high traffic websites (often Google's own) that are already re-processing millions of photos and/or images and Chrome are the obvious first places to get a foothold, long before anyone would think about actually editing a webp by hand in photoshop.

wicknicks 14y ago

I feel that this is the reason Facebook is trying such formats. If people have difficulty downloading the photos, they will visit the website more, and share more photos through FB than go through the "download -> edit -> non-facebook sharing medium (email/dropbox)" pipeline.

lelandbatey 14y ago
I really don't think that's the chief reason. A very tiny number of Facebook users save images locally as it is, and by switching to webp Facebook really does save them a tremendous amount of money. Also, since webp is an open format, it's not like users can't use very easy converters/viewers to make webp quite usable. I don't feel like this move is significantly more than an economic one.

igrigorik 14y ago

This is slightly orthogonal, but still worth mentioning: there is WebP codec available for Windows, which adds WebP support in explorer and all the other common tools. Download page: https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download