Google Outlines Why They Are Removing JPEG-XL Support From Chrome

[Quackdoc]

Cloudinary's response

https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl

[brucethemoose]

Cloudinary's response

https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl

They have a good link to Google's own blog: https://opensource.googleblog.com/20...xl-images.html

I see the issue tracker is blowing up too, as this news gets around. I don't think anyone expected Google to depreciate JXL in Chrome.

[wswartzendruber]

I am really hoping that the issue tracker blowing up is enough to make them change their minds.

[brucethemoose]

I am really hoping that the issue tracker blowing up is enough to make them change their minds.

I dont think so, given the continued discission on the commit itself like the issue tracker doesnt exist.


... I think Google won? Even if Edge, Safari and such enable JXL independently, they have effectively killed the format. Which is really stupid, as this isn't like vhs vs betamax or AOM vs MPEG where the winner actually gets profit from it :/.

[F.Ultra]

That just means you didn't read it. Or at least you didn't understand it.

I have your two points right here:

1. now and especially back then you couldn't just use any other OS as many programs won't work. Sure it has gotten much better, especially thanks to WINE, but still there are programs you can't run through WINE and that don't have Linux compatible alternatives
2. MS made it so it was impossible to write a browser that could display websites correctly. And if someone figured out how to improve compatibility, it most likely was infringing patents so they would have stopped that browser.

Now let's quote the ruling from The European Commission back in 2009:

The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Now please explain how I should read your two points and understand them to make them fit with what actually happened.

[Artim]

I have your two points right here:


Now let's quote the ruling from The European Commission back in 2009:



Now please explain how I should read your two points and understand them to make them fit with what actually happened.

There you have it j. You didn't understand it. My comment was a response to another comment, which you obviously didn't read. And I never said that where the reasons MS was fined, those where the reasons why there was an investigation in the first place. The bundling was just the easiest point to throw MS under the bus. But that was not the reason something had to be done. Every OS bundles a browser, Windows still bundles IE. But there where no way for any other browser to succeed if website developers kept using only MS' proprietary standards which can't be displayed in any other browser.

[F.Ultra]

I never said that where the reasons MS was fined

Yes you did:

MS was forced to give users the choice because

And after that you only wrote those two points that I now have already quoted twice.

those where the reasons why there was an investigation in the first place

No it wasn't, the single reason there was an investigation was that Netscape et al reported Microsoft to the European Commission for abusing the monopoly in operating systems to get benefits in the browser market.

All that you wrote is technically correct in what MS did and why it was bad but it had zero to do with why they where forced to do the "choose your browser" screen. Even if WINE/Proton had worked as good as it does today the ruling would still have been the same because it doesn't matter one bit for what MS was accused of. And even if IE had been the pinnacle of innovation the ruling would also still have been the same because non of that matters for what MS was accused of.

It's very simple, if you have a monopoly or a de facto monopoly in one market you cannot use that to gain benefits in other markets, the quality of your product does not matter, that there exists workarounds does not matter. That every other OS under the sun also bundles a browser does not matter.

[Artim]

Yes you did:


And after that you only wrote those two points that I now have already quoted twice.



No it wasn't, the single reason there was an investigation was that Netscape et al reported Microsoft to the European Commission for abusing the monopoly in operating systems to get benefits in the browser market.

All that you wrote is technically correct in what MS did and why it was bad but it had zero to do with why they where forced to do the "choose your browser" screen. Even if WINE/Proton had worked as good as it does today the ruling would still have been the same because it doesn't matter one bit for what MS was accused of. And even if IE had been the pinnacle of innovation the ruling would also still have been the same because non of that matters for what MS was accused of.

It's very simple, if you have a monopoly or a de facto monopoly in one market you cannot use that to gain benefits in other markets, the quality of your product does not matter, that there exists workarounds does not matter. That every other OS under the sun also bundles a browser does not matter.

As already said, actually read and understand my comments or stop replying. You don't make any sense.

[F.Ultra]

As already said, actually read and understand my comments or stop replying. You don't make any sense.

You just repeating that sentence over and over doesn't help at all. I could say the very same to you about my comments, but as you have noticed I didn't, I gave actual arguments, something that you so far have not done. So the only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't have any arguments.

[Dasein]

Like the Google Employees said, all we have to do is vote by clicking on the star 👀

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84