4 ms·

Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Are we now saddled with a new video format sprea

Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Are we now saddled with a new video format spread to an entire ecosystem and websites required to support it? Are users pissed off that they "Save As" Theora files but can't use them in other apps? WebP isn't just about efficiency over JPEG, the biggest benefit comes from replacing PNG and GIF, which people use for alpha transparency and animation respectively. These are practical, immediate problems that today's web developers face, can they wait a few more years until Xiph approved codec does better?

pcwalton 13y ago
> Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Yes, because of the IP/patent issues, which do not apply to GIF (nowadays), PNG, and JPEG.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  The issue of widespread usage of alpha transparency and animated images do apply however. Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster.
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    > Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? The bitstream format of VP8 (which WebP is a derivative of) is frozen. > It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster. Come on. Google is not a legislative body.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      Neither of those mean Mozilla can't work with Google together on a next-gen spec. Simply saying the current status quo is ok (jpeg + gif/png) is a disservice. Pushing JPEG XR isn't a solution either, it doesn't support animation for example. What I'm saying is, rather than say "no", be constructive. I see Mozilla saying "No", but I don't see them actually proposing anything that solves the other problems WebP is trying to solve. No studies have been presented on lossless, transparency, or animated encoding efficiency for example. WebP offers huge immediate savings on PNG/GIF use cases today, and this is especially important on mobile. Developers need these options now, not 2 years from now.
      - pcwalton 13y ago
        > I see Mozilla saying "No", but I don't see them actually proposing anything that solves the other problems WebP is trying to solve. No studies have been presented on lossless, transparency, or animated encoding efficiency for example. Mozilla supports (and developed) APNG, which has existed for a lot longer than WebP. Google has thus far not implemented APNG (bug here, open since 2008 [1]). You might want to be careful about casually throwing around words like "NIH" when it comes to animated image formats… The fact is that both browsers are perfectly free to not implement standards that they think are harmful, without having to come up with some better solution right away. Whenever we implement something on the Web, if it gets traction we are stuck with it forever. So we should move carefully. Don't you think we should be making sure standards are sizable improvements over the status quo instead of just accepting every marginal improvement? If WebP is indeed worse than JPEG, then authors have to choose between better quality (JPEG) and alpha channels/transparency (WebP). That's not a very good decision to force them to make. [1]: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1171 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1171
        cromwellian 13y ago
        Is WebP really "worse" than JPEG, or just about the same, or not a substantial improvement? The real question is, what if you don't compare WebP to JPEG, but instead, compare it to APNG, then how does the calculus come out? If I prepare two animated/transparent images of 100 frames today, what is the filesize of APNG vs WebP? To me that's the real question. My social network streams are filled full of animated GIFs now and they are huge. The G+ mobile client uses WebP for these and the savings are substantial.

pcwalton 13y ago

> Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Yes, because of the IP/patent issues, which do not apply to GIF (nowadays), PNG, and JPEG.

cromwellian 13y ago
The issue of widespread usage of alpha transparency and animated images do apply however. Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? The bitstream format of VP8 (which WebP is a derivative of) is frozen. > It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster. Come on. Google is not a legislative body.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Neither of those mean Mozilla can't work with Google together on a next-gen spec. Simply saying the current status quo is ok (jpeg + gif/png) is a disservice. Pushing JPEG XR isn't a solution either, it doesn't support animation for example. What I'm saying is, rather than say "no", be constructive. I see Mozilla saying "No", but I don't see them actually proposing anything that solves the other problems WebP is trying to solve. No studies have been presented on lossless, transparency, or animated encoding efficiency for example. WebP offers huge immediate savings on PNG/GIF use cases today, and this is especially important on mobile. Developers need these options now, not 2 years from now.
    - pcwalton 13y ago
      > I see Mozilla saying "No", but I don't see them actually proposing anything that solves the other problems WebP is trying to solve. No studies have been presented on lossless, transparency, or animated encoding efficiency for example. Mozilla supports (and developed) APNG, which has existed for a lot longer than WebP. Google has thus far not implemented APNG (bug here, open since 2008 [1]). You might want to be careful about casually throwing around words like "NIH" when it comes to animated image formats… The fact is that both browsers are perfectly free to not implement standards that they think are harmful, without having to come up with some better solution right away. Whenever we implement something on the Web, if it gets traction we are stuck with it forever. So we should move carefully. Don't you think we should be making sure standards are sizable improvements over the status quo instead of just accepting every marginal improvement? If WebP is indeed worse than JPEG, then authors have to choose between better quality (JPEG) and alpha channels/transparency (WebP). That's not a very good decision to force them to make. [1]: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1171 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1171
      - cromwellian 13y ago
        Is WebP really "worse" than JPEG, or just about the same, or not a substantial improvement? The real question is, what if you don't compare WebP to JPEG, but instead, compare it to APNG, then how does the calculus come out? If I prepare two animated/transparent images of 100 frames today, what is the filesize of APNG vs WebP? To me that's the real question. My social network streams are filled full of animated GIFs now and they are huge. The G+ mobile client uses WebP for these and the savings are substantial.