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

  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    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
    Last edited by Quackdoc; 09 December 2022, 06:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • 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 👀

    https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium...id=1178058#c84

    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:

Working...
X