Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dasein View Post
    Like the Google Employees said, all we have to do is vote by clicking on the star 👀

    https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium...id=1178058#c84
    You really think they care that much? They have no interest in supporting it. So if anybody wants to add support, they should simply write an extension. Immediate support available for like 95 % of all users without Google having to waste any ressources on it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Artim View Post

      You really think they care that much? They have no interest in supporting it. So if anybody wants to add support, they should simply write an extension. Immediate support available for like 95 % of all users without Google having to waste any ressources on it.
      It sure seems that atleast some Google Employees do but they said that they need an issue that's been filed with a lot of activity on, so that they can reference it to say there is support.

      It's not just those from chrome/chromium,
      - Reps from Intel are also asking for it to stay,
      - Cloudinary is also asking,
      - Medical Imaging Devs are asking,
      Other companies are asking, and users from the community are asking. It's even been acknowledged by people working on other browsers & Momentum has hit its peak.

      So the more to show, the merrier and every little helps. :3

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dasein View Post

        It sure seems that atleast some Google Employees do but they said that they need an issue that's been filed with a lot of activity on, so that they can reference it to say there is support.

        It's not just those from chrome/chromium,
        - Reps from Intel are also asking for it to stay,
        - Cloudinary is also asking,
        - Medical Imaging Devs are asking,
        Other companies are asking, and users from the community are asking. It's even been acknowledged by people working on other browsers & Momentum has hit its peak.

        So the more to show, the merrier and every little helps. :3
        Sure. But I bet Google first wants to see if there is actual interest, or just a bunch of marketing and people hearing from it over the media. Because it would show actual interest in that BS format if other browsers started to support it (natively or through some extension). But some rants in a bug tracker that will fizzle out in a month or sooner and then will be completely forgotten doesn't show any real interest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Artim View Post

          Sure. But I bet Google first wants to see if there is actual interest, or just a bunch of marketing and people hearing from it over the media. Because it would show actual interest in that BS format if other browsers started to support it (natively or through some extension). But some rants in a bug tracker that will fizzle out in a month or sooner and then will be completely forgotten doesn't show any real interest.
          I still dont think this is about interest at all, I suspect its at least one AOM dev (namely the one who authored the original commit) sniping support because they think AVIF makes JXL obsolete.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

            I still dont think this is about interest at all, I suspect its at least one AOM dev (namely the one who authored the original commit) sniping support because they think AVIF makes JXL obsolete.
            nah, did you see the data they posted? they know for a fact that it doesn't but their pride won't let them have a better alternative

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

              I still dont think this is about interest at all, I suspect its at least one AOM dev (namely the one who authored the original commit) sniping support because they think AVIF makes JXL obsolete.
              At least they don't have any use for it themselves. And they have no interest in being lured into a trap to pay royalties. MS being granted an obviously prior art patent for a technology found in many current compression techniques is probably reason enough to sit back and just wait.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Artim View Post
                MS being granted an obviously prior art patent for a technology found in many current compression techniques is probably reason enough to sit back and just wait.
                it's not google devs and employees have already stated on multiple channels that google is comfortable with implementing JXL. this is entirely the decision of butthurt prideful idiots.

                EDIT: not to mention that JXL has defensive patents, meaning that if MS were to come out and say that they wanna be a patent troll, google's patents in it would kick in and prevent MS from using JXL, which I highly doubt they would like
                Last edited by Quackdoc; 09 December 2022, 06:29 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Go_Vulkan View Post
                  Well, webp is supported in every browser and not "hidden", it just works.
                  It is also supported in LibreOffice, Gimp 2.99, content management systems, wiki engines, and so on.

                  Any other format would have to be significantly better than webp, not just better than the old JPG. I have used webp for some years now, both the compressed and the lossless version, and I really don't miss anything. Nor do I miss just another format like jpeg xl.
                  webp sucks for once because it has a four-letter suffix. Cool formats always have a three-letter suffix. So. jxl is much better in this respect. Also saves 25% on suffix-related disk-space compared to webp.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by timtas View Post

                    webp sucks for once because it has a four-letter suffix. Cool formats always have a three-letter suffix. So. jxl is much better in this respect. Also saves 25% on suffix-related disk-space compared to webp.
                    That must be it. How could we have been so blind. That's why odt, ods etc are much better than docx, xlsx etc. Lol

                    Comment


                    • Apple has joined the three suffix gang aka tsg

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X