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

  • brucethemoose
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dasein
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X