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

[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 :/.

[wswartzendruber]

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

[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.

[Quackdoc]

Cloudinary's response

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

[Artim]

I don't disagree, but what are you calling an ad board? This would work on these vertical ultrawide displays, and with some expense - make them 5K ultrawide, probably include a light sensor to autocalibrate because nobody will set them up properly.

That would be one possibility. But depending how professional the printing is (that means beyond the capabilities of CMYK) you might need to be able to display something beyond sRGB in order to view it on your screen as it would look like as a finished product.

[nothing1234]

That's why this also falls into the realm of antitrust. Like you said, Google is driven by profit. Part of the way of ensuring Google gets that profit is to make it easy and free to use Google-provided tools and technology so people will pay them for the rest of their technology ecosystem. WebP is Google's image format based on Google's video format. Because of that, it isn't any surprise that all the rest of the Google ecosystem, like Google Photos, supports that format. Google forcing Photos to use WebP is Google's way to strong-arm the rest of the world into adopting The Google Format, WebP.

10 or 15 years ago what you said about Google would have been true. That was before they dropped Do No Evil. Now that they're No, Do Evil they don't care about pushing or using the best tech, only pushing or using their tech even if it as the expense of snubbing what's better or going out of their way to suppress their competitor.

The other part that puts this into antitrust is the person that did the commit is an AVIF contributor that works for Google. Of the modern three standards widely discussed, two are from Google and one isn't and the one that isn't just happened to be yanked by a person that helps write the competing codec. People in that position making those kinds of decisions are why we have antitrust laws.

I don't know how you can say it with a straight face that it's just a coincidence that the one advanced image codec not coming from Google just happens to be the one codec that Google isn't going to support; especially when JPEG-XL support was pulled by a contributor of one of the competing codecs that Google employs.

Maybe that guy did it for job security. Maybe Google did it to push their tooling. Either way it sounds like antitrust.

It's not antitrust. It's only antitrust if google only supports proprietary formats. In this case, google is choosing between an open format over another open format. Google is more likely pushing for AVIF than Webp and they've already deprecated webp2 too. Nothing is preventing other companies from implementing AVIF or JXL so it does not really stifle competition. It's like choosing between Linux and BSD. Google have already rejected supporting other formats such as HEVC, HEIF and JPEG 2000 so they've been 'anticompetitive' for a long time already. The only thing bad about this is that AVIF is worse than JPEG XL.

[grok]

"Ad boards" as in physical world ad boards. People not using adblockers have just lost control over their lives.

I don't disagree, but what are you calling an ad board? This would work on these vertical ultrawide displays, and with some expense - make them 5K ultrawide, probably include a light sensor to autocalibrate because nobody will set them up properly.

[Artim]

I read your entire comment, and even included it in my reply. You made two assertions for why MS was forced to do the "choose a brower", and both where 100% wrong.

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

[Artim]

So you need HDR pictures to display HDR ads on phones. We're making progress. I'm sure you'll hate it but, you won't see the HDR in print or on outdoor displays.

"Ad boards" as in physical world ad boards. People not using adblockers have just lost control over their lives.

[F.Ultra]

Thanks for proving you didn't even read half of my comment, let alone the comment I responded to...

I read your entire comment, and even included it in my reply. You made two assertions for why MS was forced to do the "choose a brower", and both where 100% wrong.