4 ms·

To some extent, yes. However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. Someone made a lot of money on licensing. I think WebP stands a pretty good chan

To some extent, yes. However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. Someone made a lot of money on licensing. I think WebP stands a pretty good chance of supplanting JPEG on the web but it will still be used in lots of places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I don't think anyone really used the bit of JPEG that was flagged up initially as not being royalty-free (I think IBM owned that part?) and later on I think it was only patent trolls that tried (unsuccesfully) to licence JPEG. Which licencing on JPEG are you referring to?
- jsingleton 11y ago
  I don't think it applied to the version used on the web. However, this is just from memory based on conversations I had with MPEG and JPEG board members a long time ago. I can't find any sources so I could be mistaken.
gillianseed 11y ago
>However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. I was under the impression that the free implementations (like libjpeg) did not use and of the patented techniques (such as arithmetic coding which patent recently expired) ? >I think WebP stands a pretty good chance of supplanting JPEG on the web but it will still be used in lots of places. I don't think anything will supplant JPEG as the de facto image format on the 'web', it's simply 'good enough' and of course free and supported everywhere. Also as for lossy compression I'm not sure WebP is a real improvement over JPEG, I'd love to see it used instead of PNG for lossless compression though, as here it is clearly superior.
varjag 11y ago
> However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. This is exactly the bit I was referring to (the arithmetic coding method). The rest of CCITT/ITU baseline spec was unencumbered, that's what everyone ended up using. Source: me, who implemented a baseline JPEG codec in late '90s.
acomjean 11y ago
Did you mean GIF? Patents and compuserve/unisys attempt to make money off them basically pushed the development of PNG to replace it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I don't think anyone really used the bit of JPEG that was flagged up initially as not being royalty-free (I think IBM owned that part?) and later on I think it was only patent trolls that tried (unsuccesfully) to licence JPEG. Which licencing on JPEG are you referring to?

jsingleton 11y ago
I don't think it applied to the version used on the web. However, this is just from memory based on conversations I had with MPEG and JPEG board members a long time ago. I can't find any sources so I could be mistaken.

gillianseed 11y ago

>However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. I was under the impression that the free implementations (like libjpeg) did not use and of the patented techniques (such as arithmetic coding which patent recently expired) ? >I think WebP stands a pretty good chance of supplanting JPEG on the web but it will still be used in lots of places. I don't think anything will supplant JPEG as the de facto image format on the 'web', it's simply 'good enough' and of course free and supported everywhere. Also as for lossy compression I'm not sure WebP is a real improvement over JPEG, I'd love to see it used instead of PNG for lossless compression though, as here it is clearly superior.

varjag 11y ago

> However, JPEG was also patented and that did pretty well. This is exactly the bit I was referring to (the arithmetic coding method). The rest of CCITT/ITU baseline spec was unencumbered, that's what everyone ended up using. Source: me, who implemented a baseline JPEG codec in late '90s.

acomjean 11y ago

Did you mean GIF? Patents and compuserve/unisys attempt to make money off them basically pushed the development of PNG to replace it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF