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

[Artim]

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.

[Dasein]

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

[Artim]

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.

[brucethemoose]

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.

[Quackdoc]

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

[Artim]

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.

[Quackdoc]

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

[timtas]

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.

[Artim]

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