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

[Pajn]

The few sites that were using it provided instructions on how to enable JPEG-XL on Chrome since it is arguably the easiest to use it on since it is just switching on an experimental flag on the standard version. Firefox requires the flag in addition to using the nightly version. Edge requires editing the launch parameters.

Asking users to reconfigure their browsers to enable experimental features is not something that any site with an actual user count will ever do or even consider.

[gbcox]

Unfortunatelly Firefox has not alloted any ressources to JPEG XL:
According to Old_Building_7587 on reddit:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075

[gbcox]

Your comparison makes no sense. MS was forced to give users the choice because

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.

this is not the case with JXL and Chrome. Sure, Firefox' support for web standards is quite lacking, but like I said, it's not a problem to make a browser that has no compatibility issues that also supports JXL. Plus for all I know, support for unsupported formats can be provided by extensions. At least I remember those existing for APNG and other stuff. So you can really not tell anybody that they can't get JXL support even though Google isn't (currently) wasting any ressources on it.

You need to read the actual lawsuit.

[skeevy420]

Asking users to reconfigure their browsers to enable experimental features is not something that any site with an actual user count will ever do or even consider.

Does Photoshop count? Adobe asks their users to enable the experimental features...and, for Adobe, it only works on macOS at the moment. Looks like they were going to start using macOS+Chrome as their beta ground to test JPEG-XL HDR content.

[Artim]

Does Photoshop count? Adobe asks their users to enable the experimental features...and, for Adobe, it only works on macOS at the moment. Looks like they were going to start using macOS+Chrome as their beta ground to test JPEG-XL HDR content.

That's a recommendation for their own product. So when they write that publicly you can be quite sure that they deem it stable enough to not have to fear any consequences. If it was in like an alpha-grade stage they most likely wouldn't have written that. That's a totally different situation to writing such guides for other people's products, especially when they are changing that fast.

And well, they don't get to decide which software has to support it so they can test it. If Mozilla doesn't follow suit, they can use the Firefox nightly instead, otherwise they'll have to find their own way. Shouldn't be that difficult.

[CommunityMember]

https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/

https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/13/microsoft_ans_patent/

If (and we don't/can't know) the reasoning for dropping JPEG-XL was due to Google's lawyers concerns about IP, no one outside of Google will ever have the details, as Google would never provide any internal discussions/recommendations (it is a legal thing). That is the problem with such things, as legal recommendations may be indistinguishable from what may appear to be otherwise questionable choices.

[Artim]

If (and we don't/can't know) the reasoning for dropping JPEG-XL was due to Google's lawyers concerns about IP, no one outside of Google will ever have the details, as Google would never provide any internal discussions/recommendations (it is a legal thing). That is the problem with such things, as legal recommendations may be indistinguishable from what may appear to be otherwise questionable choices.

While that is true, they aren't the only ones with lawyers. And when there's enough reason for concern you can be sure Firefox, Shotwell, GIMP etc. won't support it either/drop support that's currently being worked on.

[F.Ultra]

Your comparison makes no sense. MS was forced to give users the choice because

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.

this is not the case with JXL and Chrome. Sure, Firefox' support for web standards is quite lacking, but like I said, it's not a problem to make a browser that has no compatibility issues that also supports JXL. Plus for all I know, support for unsupported formats can be provided by extensions. At least I remember those existing for APNG and other stuff. So you can really not tell anybody that they can't get JXL support even though Google isn't (currently) wasting any ressources on it.

None of that was the reason behind the EU deciding to force MS to offer a choice of a browser. The single thing (and how antitrust works) was that MS had a de facto monopoly in the OS market which they used to try to get a hold of the browser market. That alternatives like WINE exists does not change any of this, nor does the quality of their browser change any of this, if you have a monopoly or a de facto monopoly then you are not allowed to use that to get benefits in other markets.

That said, there can be exactly zero antitrust cases against Google for not supporting JXL, so you are correct in that, you just happened to get to that point in the wrong way ;-)

[Artim]

None of that was the reason behind the EU deciding to force MS to offer a choice of a browser. The single thing (and how antitrust works) was that MS had a de facto monopoly in the OS market which they used to try to get a hold of the browser market. That alternatives like WINE exists does not change any of this, nor does the quality of their browser change any of this, if you have a monopoly or a de facto monopoly then you are not allowed to use that to get benefits in other markets.

That said, there can be exactly zero antitrust cases against Google for not supporting JXL, so you are correct in that, you just happened to get to that point in the wrong way ;-)

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

[cl333r]

They (Apple) also don't prevent you, for the most part, from implementing it yourself. **Whistles in Vulkan**

Speaking of Vulkan specifically, imho they don't block the Vulkan efforts because of the fear of backlash. Apple is generally as restrictive as it thinks it can get away with, and it applies to every rich corporation because they mirror human nature.
There's ways of controlling users/content/app even in the open source world (Google with Android and their app store).