Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe libjpeg/libjpeg-turbo are sort of an all-in-one kinda thing with both decoding and encoding, Mozilla is only looking at encoding here, and it's not really a fork in the traditional sense. It's more like, taking a knife and cutting a piece of cake in half, and THEN using a fork to eat it, if you get what I mean.
Originally Posted by TAXI
It's already supported in Photoshop and a large number of image editors, and can be processed in real time by a number of programming languages. Mozilla has a problem with WebP, but application support isn't it.
Originally Posted by Calinou
Shouldn't Mozilla focus on decoding functions, not encoding?
They already have that, and there's plenty of good JPEG decoders, they're a dime a dozen. Encoders are severely lacking though, and since WebP is trying to potentially dethrone JPEG, Mozilla figures they can simply improve the existing staple that is JPEG rather than support WebP. WebP can seem like it's great if it compares to bad JPEG encoders and settings used for them, but I think it's completely feasible to get something close enough to or better than WebP with a great encoder for JPEG.
Originally Posted by caligula
It's actually quite a bit of it. What happens when, say, mom takes a photo from Facebook and e-mails it to grandma but neither can figure out how to open it outside of their browser since it's WebP? They're not going to have all these external sort of plugins and third-party crap to enable the support for it installed nor are they going to know that's what they need. In the page you linked, in many of the descriptions it lists them as requiring an external plugin or something.
Originally Posted by psychoticmeow