6 ms·

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/

by 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.
    - lelandbatey 14y ago
      This is one of those times where changing something breaks somebody's work flow because they're doing things outside of spec. And in cases like this, you have to say "get over it." Facebook is still doing what Facebook intends to do, in fact they do it better! It's unfortunate that a tiny margin of users are slightly inconvenienced, but they need to get over it.
- ersii 14y ago
  > Because they broke the web for their users. No, they did not. They broke it for the people who download the image for viewing outside of their web browser.
  - cobralibre 14y ago
    Rather than dwelling on the phrase "they broke the web", read it as "they broke an important use case". Facebook is integral to the everyday lives of many ordinary people, and the lesson here is that the designers at Facebook need to think beyond the specific tech and content that they build and deliver; they need to also consider the context in which their product is used.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - dfxm12 14y ago
      What about the context of "my page is loading too slowly" or "Facebook is using all of the data in my monthly plan"? Some users are facing a temporary inconvenience but everyone gets an immediate & long term gain.
      - jfb 14y ago
        Not everyone: only people who are bandwidth constrained.
      - cobralibre 14y ago
        It ought to go without saying that Facebook is trying out this new image format because they expect benefits.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      I imagine the use case on the Facebook side is "viewing the image on Facebook" rather than anything beyond that.
- cbhl 14y ago
  > Because they broke the web for their users. If they're right-clicking the image to download the photo, it's already broken -- Facebook serves a heavily re-compressed JPEG by default. You need to use the menu option to download the original. I wouldn't hire the graphic designer quoted in the article; they should be able to see the compression artifacts that Facebook leaves in the images they upload, and be aware that they should be using flickr or dropbox or another photo storage service instead.
- wtracy 14y ago
  They broke a use case that does not generate advertising revenue. Of course they don't care. Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone, somewhere tout that as an advantage of WebP: "Joe Shmoe can't rip off your pictures in Photoshop!" </cynicism>
- dspillett 14y ago
  > Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. If it saves a significant amount of bandwidth it could be useful to mobile users too, who might find themselves stuck somewhere with nothing but GPRS in a congested cell.
- ahoge 14y ago
  > The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. Users love faster websites. If you make your website faster, people will use it more. If you're selling something, they will buy more if your site is fast. This has been A/B tested by countless companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Shopzilla, and so forth. Front-end performance is amazingly important.
- kostya-kow 14y ago
  >Because they broke the web for their users. If you want web to progress forward, then things are going to get broken. WebP is an efficient format, and face-book is doing a good thing by increasing it's adoption speed.
kumarharsh 14y ago
Facebook has to do "anything" here, because they are the ones implementing the format. If they want users to accept the change, they need to slowly phase out jpeg via this Download button. What is much easier? Waiting for the next version of Photoshop to come (if you need built-in support for WebP, or APNG or whatnot) and splash out $1000 on that or making facebook put that small link on photos? You decide.
DavidBradbury 14y ago
¿Por qué no los dos?

by dfxm12 14y ago

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.
  - lelandbatey 14y ago
    This is one of those times where changing something breaks somebody's work flow because they're doing things outside of spec. And in cases like this, you have to say "get over it." Facebook is still doing what Facebook intends to do, in fact they do it better! It's unfortunate that a tiny margin of users are slightly inconvenienced, but they need to get over it.
ersii 14y ago
> Because they broke the web for their users. No, they did not. They broke it for the people who download the image for viewing outside of their web browser.
- cobralibre 14y ago
  Rather than dwelling on the phrase "they broke the web", read it as "they broke an important use case". Facebook is integral to the everyday lives of many ordinary people, and the lesson here is that the designers at Facebook need to think beyond the specific tech and content that they build and deliver; they need to also consider the context in which their product is used.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dfxm12 14y ago
    What about the context of "my page is loading too slowly" or "Facebook is using all of the data in my monthly plan"? Some users are facing a temporary inconvenience but everyone gets an immediate & long term gain.
    - jfb 14y ago
      Not everyone: only people who are bandwidth constrained.
    - cobralibre 14y ago
      It ought to go without saying that Facebook is trying out this new image format because they expect benefits.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    I imagine the use case on the Facebook side is "viewing the image on Facebook" rather than anything beyond that.
cbhl 14y ago
> Because they broke the web for their users. If they're right-clicking the image to download the photo, it's already broken -- Facebook serves a heavily re-compressed JPEG by default. You need to use the menu option to download the original. I wouldn't hire the graphic designer quoted in the article; they should be able to see the compression artifacts that Facebook leaves in the images they upload, and be aware that they should be using flickr or dropbox or another photo storage service instead.
wtracy 14y ago
They broke a use case that does not generate advertising revenue. Of course they don't care. Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone, somewhere tout that as an advantage of WebP: "Joe Shmoe can't rip off your pictures in Photoshop!" </cynicism>
dspillett 14y ago
> Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. If it saves a significant amount of bandwidth it could be useful to mobile users too, who might find themselves stuck somewhere with nothing but GPRS in a congested cell.
ahoge 14y ago
> The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users. Users love faster websites. If you make your website faster, people will use it more. If you're selling something, they will buy more if your site is fast. This has been A/B tested by countless companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Shopzilla, and so forth. Front-end performance is amazingly important.
kostya-kow 14y ago
>Because they broke the web for their users. If you want web to progress forward, then things are going to get broken. WebP is an efficient format, and face-book is doing a good thing by increasing it's adoption speed.

kumarharsh 14y ago

Facebook has to do "anything" here, because they are the ones implementing the format. If they want users to accept the change, they need to slowly phase out jpeg via this Download button. What is much easier? Waiting for the next version of Photoshop to come (if you need built-in support for WebP, or APNG or whatnot) and splash out $1000 on that or making facebook put that small link on photos? You decide.

DavidBradbury 14y ago

¿Por qué no los dos?