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

[Go_Vulkan]

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.

[Radtraveller]

And it has nothing at all to do with entrenched interests (tens of billions of dollars) in the medical imaging space…
right.

[CommunityMember]

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.

As with all else, two lawyers can come to different conclusions/recommendations when presented with the same set of facts, but, most importantly, some of those projects only release source (which is generally accepted as protected), while others release/ship binaries, where IP fees for distribution (may) apply.

[Artim]

As with all else, two lawyers can come to different conclusions/recommendations when presented with the same set of facts, but, most importantly, some of those projects only release source (which is generally accepted as protected), while others release/ship binaries, where IP fees for distribution (may) apply.

Sure, but distributions do ship binaries. Plus, except Shotwell, all that I mentioned do ship binaries on their websites, and not only for Linux. And when it comes to distributions... Just think back a few weeks to Fedora and hardware codecs in FFMPEG...

[pepoluan]

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.

Agree.

For me WebP is Good Enough. Alpha channel + good compression for pictures/photos = best of PNG and JPEG.

Sure, I do miss JPEG Progressive, but that's not enough of a killer feature for my use case.

[SciK]

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.

No satisfactory HDR support in WebP.

[Artim]

No satisfactory HDR support in WebP.

Because the use of HDR in pictures is so common, especially on the web or what? The discussion here isn't really about what format professionals should use, but what makes sense for the web.

[skeevy420]

Because the use of HDR in pictures is so common, especially on the web or what? The discussion here isn't really about what format professionals should use, but what makes sense for the web.

That's why we're all very pissed off about JPEG-XL in Chrome. JPEG-XL makes the most sense for both professionals and the web. You can encapsulate multibracketed HDR shots with it, you can losslessly recompress all your existing RAW and JPEGs, you can store multiple zoom levels in it, it's progressive so it's better with lower bandwidth internet connections. Those last two are very important for the internet since they allow low-bandwidth connections to view acceptable images faster and allow providers/content hosters to recompress all of their JPEGs to free up a lot of space (more so than with WebP or AVIF).

Not only is it better with the current status quo, it's future forward with everything that it offers. Its lossless mode even has the potential to replace RAW.

You might be rolling your eyes about HDR now, but its no different than everyone rolling their eyes about Adaptive Sync (G/Freesync) 10 years ago. Posts were all "Why bother with that? No one can afford the hardware and only three games support it." and now you can buy television sets with Adaptive Sync. HDR is the same way. Within the next 3-5 years nearly everything will be at least HDR10.

[Artim]

That's why we're all very pissed off about JPEG-XL in Chrome. JPEG-XL makes the most sense for both professionals and the web. You can encapsulate multibracketed HDR shots with it, you can losslessly recompress all your existing RAW and JPEGs, you can store multiple zoom levels in it, it's progressive so it's better with lower bandwidth internet connections. Those last two are very important for the internet since they allow low-bandwidth connections to view acceptable images faster and allow providers/content hosters to recompress all of their JPEGs to free up a lot of space (more so than with WebP or AVIF).

Not only is it better with the current status quo, it's future forward with everything that it offers. Its lossless mode even has the potential to replace RAW.

You might be rolling your eyes about HDR now, but its no different than everyone rolling their eyes about Adaptive Sync (G/Freesync) 10 years ago. Posts were all "Why bother with that? No one can afford the hardware and only three games support it." and now you can buy television sets with Adaptive Sync. HDR is the same way. Within the next 3-5 years nearly everything will be at least HDR10.

Like I already said, you really can't tell anybody that you actually believe that if JPEG-XL really was as great as you would like people to believe that Google wouldn't have been the first one to fully implement it. They don't give a rats ass about their own creations when the interest is too low. And if JPEG-XL really was long-term royalty-free and was actually such a massive improvement over anything else, Google Photos would definitely be using it as one of the first services. After all, who wouldn't take the opportunity to massively save storage with pretty much no work. But as you can see, Googles interest is pretty much non-existent. So reality can't be as good as you describe. After all, like every company Google is mainly driven by profit and saving lots of storage and bandwidth with no drawbacks would be a huge profit.

[SciK]

Because the use of HDR in pictures is so common, especially on the web or what? The discussion here isn't really about what format professionals should use, but what makes sense for the web.

This looks like a naturalistic fallacy. Why would HDR not make sense for the web?