Apple Revives JPEG XL, Google Is Seething!!

[@metacob]

"We're not laying any train tracks in this area because we haven't noticed any trains here."

[@AndersHass]

It could be funny if Apple then uses JPEG XL on their websites so people will complain about the images not showing on Chrome, lol

[@okashiromi5541]

As funny as that will be, it probably won't last long as ppl will start realising that the problem is the browser and not the site, images are everywhere on the web. And if a browser doesn't support a widespread format it can very well be the death of it. Now, I think chrome is at a point where it's too big to die, but it very well may cause a mass loss of users. At the very least, art focused sites will be completely unusable as the artists will likely have a massive preference to XL

[@talkysassis]

@@okashiromi5541 By the size of Chrome. They can force people to use AVIF. And AVIF is a better choice, as it is a single lib to take care of images and videos.

[@muellerhans]

Well they would likely serve JPG files out of JPEG XL ones then cause that is a thing.

[@arkhikun]

@@okashiromi5541 Nah. Webms don't work on iPhones.

[@SaHaRaSquad]

Apple would never break their site like that. But websites can let browsers automatically choose between multiple formats. Apple is almost definitely going to offer JPEG XL as the preferred option and the site will simply load a bit faster on other browsers.

[@FinaISpartan]

This is amazing. I felt so bad for Jon Sneyers who put his heart and soul into this superior codec, just for Google to kill it.

[@brainstormsurge154]

The only reason they did it is for some reason they want to make AVIF the successor to JPEG, PNG and GIF rather than letting JPEGXL and AVIF compete and see how it goes.

[@jyz]

Google Research has developed the main mode of JPEG XL, and is currently maintaining libjxl, the reference JPEG XL implementation.

[@alenasenie6928]

I will need to check, but for now webp is the best I have used. I just compressed 98gb to 10gb with loseless compression.

[@VierPuntNul]

because avif is built on av1, which is also largely Google and it has better patents and political backing via AOM… they don’t care about performance as the difference for their use cases between avif and jxl are small

[@VierPuntNul]

yes, together with a lot of other smart people (eg from cloudinary)

[@kwinzman]

Now if Mozilla changed their stance towards JPEG XL from Neutral to Positive. And even enabled it in Firefox by default as well, then that would help a great deal! I am looking at you Mozilla!

[@BrodieRobertson]

To the best of my knowledge it's been in nightly for a while but never shifted into stable

[@kwinzman]

@@BrodieRobertson Yes, and they specifically stated that they are NOT activelly advocating for it. Look at the Phoronix article: Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support.

[@kwinzman]

@@BrodieRobertson See also the Mozialla Issue: Request for position: JPEG XL #522. Specifically martinthomson's post. If we want JPEG-XL then Mozilla supporting it would go a long way!

[@idowebwork]

Yeah, having to use the about:config to enable is an interesting way to have the ability, but not enable by default. And you can do this in stable (not just nightly), but if you don't know the setting is there, then you're probably not going to enable it.

[@tr7zw]

I had it enabled in nightly for well over a year, even on Android. Mozilla, make it default already!

[@vicca4671]

As an anti-big-corporation person, while I "stan for JPEG XL", I'm much more invested in seeing Google seethe. The enemy of my enemy might still be my enemy, but I'd gladly help them aiming that shot.

[@grandsome1]

You're seeing red in the wrong place, even if jxl is open source the jpeg consortium has been big corpo assholes for years. The failure of jpeg 2000 forced them to open source jxl and make it royalty free.

[@kreuner11]

I like JPEG XL based on its merit

[@jyz]

JPEG XL was largely developed at Google.

[@icipher6730]

"The enemy of my enemy might still be my enemy, but I'd gladly help them aiming that shot." Congratulations. And do you realize that if they land that shot, it will effectively allow them to move a few millimeters closer towards being a market monopolist or at least increasing their market share, rather than make them stay in the current oligopoly scenario they are currently locked in with Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech conglomerates? It's just different shades of the same, uh, thing. So much for "anti-corpo" posturing. Why am I not surprised that this sounds like the usual modern self-sabotaging Left blabbering or maybe even covert neoliberal ideology with, among many things, its irrational unscientific belief in "good" (or "regulated") and "bad" (or "unregulated/unchecked") capitalism.

[@botbeamer]

?????? no @@jyz

[@dexterman6361]

I never thought I'd say this, but thank you Apple. Their silent addition just wreks google without any of the drama, forcing their hand at adding it too Well played apple, well played, even if was not intended. Man another day watching another corpo get wrekt is a nice day. This is the best kind as the consumer wins and the corpo gets wrekt. Nice!

[@jonragnarsson]

I don't want Apple to win, I want Google to lose

[@nandoflorestan]

I am not sure the consumer wins. There are too many web standards already, who needs all of these? For instance, who the hell needed shadow DOM and web components??? The effect of all this is that browser development is now impossible. The open web will have to be reinvented from scratch when Google, Apple and MS finally close this one! Remember, the fork of the web is right around the corner, Google is coming for the web.

[@Bustycat]

Safari was the most reluctant to add the support for image formats. Suddenly, it finally supported WebP in 2020, then AVIF in 2022, and ultimately JPEG XL and HEIF in 2023… Now it is the browser supporting new image formats the most.

[@ivolol]

Googlers discussing stuff on public trackers make for some of the most mind-bending, confusing discussions I've ever seen, no matter what the heck they're talking about and in what light. Sometimes they truly do seem to be from another planet.

[@DiThi]

The first time I heard about JPEG XL was because of your video about chromium removing it. And the more I learn about it the more I like it. It has EVERYTHING. So definitely I will be using it!

[@Afief]

I love the ability to have a single image file for multiple resolutions. Load the thumbnail when loading the website, then load the larger version of the same file when I zoom into a certain image.

[@DiThi]

@@Afief JPEG 2000 had something like that, but JPEG XL does it way better and way faster I think.

[@awesomeferret]

Remember, they have completely ignored all the people complaining on forums about how the 3rd gen Chromecast (actual CC, not the newer Android-based one) cannot play 1080p60 KZbin properly even though such a capability is explicity advertised. Yes, Google has sold streaming devices that make you avoid 60FPS content because it's unwatchable and you can't disable it, and something has to be fishy here, because I have way too much proof and have been ignored by every single tech media outlet. If they can just sell a broken streaming device with 100 percent reproducible issues for 2+ years without even getting any negative media attention, they probably think they can get away with quite a lot, and they're probably right.

[@skilletpan5674]

FYI: PNG is a container format that had some "default" compression etc methods as part of the standard. There is nothing stopping people from addding better methods.

[@MrHatoi]

This is true on a purely technical level, but in practice the codecs used by most PNGs today are basically de-facto standards; there are officially supported alternatives even today that have basically no real-world support. For any practical purposes, adding a new codec to PNG would basically be just like creating a new image format, except way more confusing; now you have newer programs which will export PNGs that don't work with older programs, despite it appearing to the average user like exactly the same file type. OGG ran into exactly this issue, and now officially specifies that the .ogg extension is specifically for files with the original Vorbis codec, and newer codecs like Opus have their own unique file extensions, despite technically still being valid OGG files. At that point there isn't much downside to just making an entirely new format, especially if it gives you the flexibility to do things you couldn't do with the old container format.

[@skilletpan5674]

@@MrHatoi Again, PNG is a container format with defaults. Much like AVI is also a container. There's no issue with different codecs in AVIs, why? Because people expect it. That seems like a rather flimsy excuse to not use PNG as a container format. "no one expects different codecs in a PNG". As to the other "issue" with OGG. Why not just do as you said and move on? A different file extension is just a quick way of providing the user with a way to recognise what file type it is. There's nothing wrong with doing that but it should not be encouraged as you get hundreds of pointless confusing extensions. It's just better to make the software able to do it for the user. Software and people tend to use convenient formats. Zip for example or tar.gzip etc. There's much better newer formats that offer better features and compression but people still use outdated tools because they are familiar with them. Not that they are actually better. I'd much rather have a world with less stagnating software but the option of using older software if the need arises.

[@mattkeith530]

Let’s get Firefox going on this too

[@RedSntDK]

It's impressive we keep repeating ourselves. Internet Explorer was a disaster because we kept all the eggs in that same basket, and now it's happening with Chrome. It's like we're unable to learn.

[@TiagoJoaoSilva]

Apple has always preferred the "AV industry standards" (JPEG, MPEG1/2/4, H.265) while Google has serious "we know better" syndrome and always pushes for their own "Silicon Valley" standards (WebP, VP9, AV1)

[@grandsome1]

At least google pushed for open-sourced royalty free standards, and now it has become the norm for new AV formats.

[@otrab1080]

Google also doesn't want to pay royalties for AV industry standards.

[@woobilicious.]

Except VP9, Opus, and mastroka (i.e. webm/mkv) are objectively better than H.265 and AAC-LC/HE and mp4. They're patent free, and perform better, why would you pay the incumbent for an inferior product? "AV standards" like Dolby audio are just straight up parasites that contribute nothing to technological improvement, I've not seen any proof it outperforms AAC-LC and that was invented in like 2004. mp4 doesn't support live streaming, and is completely unrecoverable if your recording device crashes or has it's power cut.

[@Workaholic42]

You mean like ProRes? 😅

[@ddognine]

@@Workaholic42 Exactly. A more nuanced hot take would be that Apple has always preferred proprietary standards.

[@ComradeRachel]

Knowing companies like google, that could have very likely been a bot which responds to the tickets at first.

[@kwinzman]

Or just the average corporate drone :D There are actually people at those corporations that write like this unfortunately.

[@yjlom]

also all messages ending in " Thanks!!" that doesn't look very human to me

[@textverse]

JPEG-XL works great in Gnome Web Nightly, also great hardware acceleration support in Wayland, I wish it has more devs and sponsors

[@aladdin8623]

How is the performance on cpu lifted browsing though? I mean without webgl or any gpu acceleration. Sadly gpu acceleration in browsers is still causing issues. Hopefully vulkan based video acceleration is getting implemented in browsers soon with a fallback to CPU. Isn't there even a vulkan wrapper project for CPUs out there?

[@cnr_0778]

​@@aladdin8623lavapipe?

[@tiagotiagot]

I wonder what would happen if Apple switched the camera app to storing the photos in JPEG XL...

[@RadikAlice]

Outstandingly rare Apple W

[@mvz]

The only reason for Google NOT to implement JPEG XL is if they want to still try and force their WebP format to be a thing...and even so, they could still use WebP within Chrome and allow 3rd party devs to use supported JPEG XL. Seems like at this point it would be less work for them to just roll it out instead of wasting dev time justifying why they think it is a terrible idea.

[@SaHaRaSquad]

But Google refusing to add support means they're indirectly admitting webp is worse so that's not gonna help them.

[@Nunya58294]

Their WebP format is garbage...

[@talkysassis]

@@SaHaRaSquad They have AVIF, and AVIF is waaaay better than anything out there. On my tests, the same image in JXL was 3 times larger than AVIF with the same quality. Not to mention that AOM is a single lib capable of handling video, as it is on youtube, images, and animations. A single lib can replace mp4, jpeg and gif. And as we can see with the benchmarks, AV1 have better compression than h.265.

[@bits360wastaken]

@@Nunya58294 In comparison to?

[@bits360wastaken]

@@talkysassis Quality as in SSIM/PSNR or as in % quality?

[@aladdin8623]

There is another example, when apple had big influence on standards. They refused flash in their browser for the good. Adobe's Flash was a source of ongoing security issues, performance slowdowns and a pain in the a...

[@CharlesGriswold]

Old Google: Do No Evil. New Google: *_The power!!_*

[@Claro1993]

So Google today: -Don’t- be evil.

[@billeterk]

“cca” could be “circa”. It’s usually “ca” or “c.” though.

[@TheExileFox]

c:a is common too

[@smithrockford-dv1nb]

cca is more common in some parts or niche fields, though that doesn't follow the classing "first and last letter" abbreviation format so it looks confusing.

[@joshuapettus6973]

@@smithrockford-dv1nb or it was a typo? hit the c twice?

[@UliTroyo]

Hell yeah! I've been following this standard since my favorite experimental format FLIF (worked on by Cloudinary devs) got integrated into it. I'm a fan of Cloudinary's work in this space, because I mean-how many people care about static image formats these days? BUT YOU SHOULD! Images are most of our web experience, entirely more than CSS... which is not great; we need web design to come back; the web is a Walmart parking lot... but it doesn't invalidate how important images are.

[@Cloudinary]

Thanks for referencing our blog posts! 🙌

[@le9038]

I may have never heard of JPEG XL, but hearing that it can compress with lossless quality and gradually show you a higher and high image as it loads DOES sound pretty cool...

[@jort93z]

JPEG XL is cool, so that's nice. One cool feature it has for the web is progressive rendering. Jpeg can load line by line(which you might have see on a slow connection), jpeg xl is able to load at lower quality first and then gradually increase the quality as more data is transmitted. Some sites have weird hacks, like showing you a thumbnail first and full resolution once it is finished loading, but the jpeg xl solution is much better.

You can already do progressive loading with the existing JPEG format though, and it is supported by all browsers IIRC (even including some versions of IE). You just have to save them as progressive. I don't know if it results in worse compression in terms of size or artifacts though, because I don't use it 😁

[@jort93z]

@ Ah, i see. Not sure if webp supports it. That sort of thing is helpful with slow connections.

[@teslainvestah5003]

​@A png can also be made progressive. But the compression ratio is always slightly worse. A progressive PNG is just one where the pixels are rearranged before compression, so that the top row of the compressed image holds something like the top left pixel values of all 16x16 blocks in the real image, and the next few rows of the compressed image hold the top left pixel values of all the 8x8 blocks in the real image (except for the ones that were already the top left of a 16x16 block) and so on. So the PNG codec doesn't "know" it's working on a progressive image. The lines that have already been downloaded can be used to make a lower-resolution approximation of the whole image, but the low-resolution approximation is only shown to the user. PNG doesn't know about it, and doesn't take advantage of it to make better predictions of pixels, even though the benefits to compression would be huge. For a codec that relies on the pixel rearrangement hack and doesn't really know what a progressive image is, I think compression gets worse because the pixels that are most correlated with each other (direct neighbors) are sometimes moved to different regions of the image, with new neighbors they are less similar to, which can only ever be a bad thing for compression. FLIF was designed from the ground up to take (almost?) the maximum possible advantage of the data it has already downloaded. I saw a demo of FLIF, and it was black magic, and much of FLIF's technology became a part of Jpeg-XL. In flif, progressive images weren't a compromise at all, they were probably the main reason it beat the snot out of PNG (non-progressive) in every compression benchmark under the sun.

[@joshj88]

I use GPLed software in Mac OS all the time. Google quite frankly is getting a little arrogant and I think it would be hilarious to see Apple take them down with OSS

[@SimonJustesen]

Google probably doesn’t want JPEG-XL to compete with WebP (which also provides great compression / quality ratio over formats like JPEG, PNG etc.)

[@morxemplum]

Probably not WebP, but AVIF. It's clear that WebP 2 was abandoned because AVIF would be the successor. It's very clearly a conflict of interest between ISO and AOM.

[@kwinzman]

It's pretty clear if you follow the bugtracker. My interpretation is the Google "firsching" engineer wanted to include JPEG-XL. But then got overruled by his boss due to fudged performance numbers that the AV1 team provided and corporate politics.

[@TheExileFox]

@morxemplum you seem to be confusing webp and webm

[@morxemplum]

@@TheExileFox I think it's the other way around. WebM is specifically a container for video codecs, which AV1 is, not AVIF. AVIF is meant to be an image format based on some of the compression techniques the AV1 codec uses. Like WebP, AVIF is an image format. The reason why it would be better to push out AVIF instead of continuing to work on WebP 2, is so that they could make the argument that AVIF is a standard pushed by a "consortium", rather than a product/service pushed by a company (which is what WebP 1 and 2 essentially are).

[@supercellex4D]

​@@morxemplumApple supports JPEG-XL because the Apple Silicon line of Systems are AV1 impaired, I finally figured it out 🤣

[@John7No]

Chromium development should not be in the hands of Google. As it is, Chromium is just following what Google wants. The only way that this gets balanced is if the browsers based on chromium change to webkit of gecko. Or have devs on the decision boards of chromium from other companies/foundations apart from google.

[@FengLengshun]

Did I strayed into the Beta Worldline at some point? Because that is the only explanation for how Oracle and now Apple seems to be a champion of some of the OSS community goals.

[@tobiasfedder1390]

As a web developer I know that I should provide the same image in multiple formats so that any browser can pick the best format which it can render. But given this chromium situation, I am tempted to provide JXL only, and a snarky comment to fall back on for the hordes of chromium users.

[@johnbash-on-ger]

Please do.

[@Fastlan3]

A company that has so many projects will inevitably also be the company who will prematurely end many projects.

[@gljames24]

I'm glad Google got reminded that there is always a bigger fish. No matter how much control they think they have, they never have as much as they think they do. Hubris and all that.

[@ZipplyZane]

It reads to me like the responses from Google are all automated. It noticed a similarity to a previous bug, and that (likely) they didn't fill out the OS section since it applies to all OSes. I'm unsure if a bug to reopen a bug is the norm there, or if it would have been expected just to reply to the old bug.

[@altermetax]

Based on my experience with the Chromium bug tracker, if you respond to a closed bug you'll definitely get ignored

[@randomness0]

If Mozilla and Apple decide to include JPEG XL support out of the box in their browsers, while Chrome doesn't.Then ordinary people will see it as certain images don't work on Chrome but switching to a different browser solves the problem, TLDR: Chrome's problem. Even if devs include backup PNG or WebP images, people will see it as Chrome loading images much slower than FireFox and Safari. Google is 100% gonna have to adapt.

[@SkyyySi]

You know that, in reality, people still won't consider using JPEG XL unless Chrome supports it, right? It's still completely unreasonable to have your website be broken on >60% of all browsers. Google's got everyone by the balls.

[@grandsome1]

nah the rest of the internet is broken when you're not on a chrome or webkit based browser. love Firefox but god 1/5 sites have bug or weird or broken behavior on Firefox.

[@smithrockford-dv1nb]

@@SkyyySi You can have fallbacks such that the side doesn't break. What one could do is pup a notice saying "does the website load slowly? chrome might be the issue, use firefox or safari to fix the issue" so non tech-savvy people likely will follow the instructions. Keep in mind that the onboarding process to transfer data is really quite nice.

[@SkyyySi]

@@smithrockford-dv1nb And... who's actually gonna do that? No one. Ok, maybe for some niche websites that only a dozen people have ever even heard about, but besides that, no one's going to bother to through all that extra work.

[@whosdr]

@@SkyyySi Actually it's not as uncommon as you'd think to serve different versions of a resource depending on the client. And there are media CDNs which will do this automatically. For those services the bandwidth saving becomes important and you might actually see these features in use. But it would depend on there being enough support to justify the additional disk space.

[@muellerhans]

Fun fact: You can even choose what part of a JPEG XL you want to get loaded.

[@DelticEngine]

I hope JPEG XL catches on as it's a royalty-free op format. I would really like to see a version of MJPEG using JPEG XL. I really like MJPEG it because I find it much better for editing.

[@TheExileFox]

Without a new extension like JXL, people will still think it's trash because "jpg is trash" (since it's a lossy format normally)

[@gljames24]

JXL has support for gif style animated images, but thankfully at a higher resolution and with transparency!

[@system128]

iirc it can

[@STNKbone]

Apple adopting JPEG-XL isn't surprising at all. JPEG is part of the ISO, and ever since the beginning of OS X, Apple has been all about conforming to ISO standards. That's why Quicktime can still only play MPEG video, and why Apple is the only major company to embrace H.265 and HEIC. These are all ISO starndards. Webp has nothing to do with the ISO, so Apple had no inerest in supporting it, and only begrudgingly did so once it got popular enough to cause compatibility issues for Safari.

[@willful759]

The one time i'm glad apple is going of their way to do things differently and hopefully set a trend as they do

[@whamer100]

holy shit finally this format is getting its foot in the door for real now

[@FatDawlf]

Google: The most stupidly stubborn company ever

[@dungeonseeker3087]

Also Gnome have recently merged JXL support into WebkitGTK, pretty soon it will only be Chrome that doesn't have support.

[@act.13.41]

Who knew it was so hard to re-open a bug report? 😂

[@Ghfvhvfg]

Dumb Project Leads thats why

[@Reichstaubenminister]

The email username is an Indian last name, not surprised.

[@carver3489]

@@Reichstaubenminister please do the needful and open the bug

[@ClosestNearUtopia]

Google, GTFO! Apple; go shame yourself, long time, but its good to see something blocking off the google api😂

[@Hyperboid]

Man, I'm not old enough to remember Apple doing a good thing. Looks like that's changing.

[@MrInside20]

They killed Flash. Everyone hated them but they were right as per usual…

[@Ruzgfpegk]

I hate Apple and vowed to never give them a single cent willingly, but if they can contribute in giving Google well-deserved ass-beatings then they'll receive some silent nods from me. Jpeg-XL is a good format, I recompressed my FFXIV screenshots losslessly with it and I got a 50% reduction in size compared to the game PNGs: it's a better ratio than what I got from lossless WebP.

[@YannMetalhead]

"They are reconsidering reconsidering" XD

[@Spencer-wc6ew]

Now it would really be funny if apple releases Safari for Windows, Linux, and Android and advertises it as the only browser that supports Jpeg XL

[@bot-h2h]

they wont do it for linux

[@BrodieRobertson]

They used to have a Windows version

[@michaelwright2986]

@@BrodieRobertson Which came with iTunes for Windows, whether you wanted it or not. That was a long time ago, possibly even before Google turned evil.

[@BrodieRobertson]

@@michaelwright2986 it's been a very long time since I used iTunes, I thought they were seperate at the time

[@bvd_vlvd]

Gnome Web is going to offer a more modern surfing experience than Google Chrome I love 2023

[@thetechq]

It would be funny if Brave, Edge, and other Chromium browsers support it, but Chrome does not.

[@nitrogenez]

Apple is a tech giant, and once was a revolutionary corporation. It still has it's influence, and other corps are thinking, that Apple knows exactly what people want. Even if they have no clue.

[@johnbash-on-ger]

And now Apple is, once again, a revolutionary company.

[@tsalVlog]

cca. is an uncommon (but valid) abbreviation for "circa".

[@Waitwhat469]

Dang I was an AVIF fan boy, but it really does seem like JPEG-XL has some serious pros to it. AVIF's big promise to me seen when AV1 enabled hw accelleration becomes bigger.

[@BrodieRobertson]

It's not a winner takes all game, we can support both formats

[@fangzhou3235]

I’m going to Lightroom, reprocess all my old RAW photos in HDR, and export the photos as HDR JXL to be viewed on my iPhone and iPad (12.9" pro with miniLED). Saves over 50% of storage space, and full glory of HDR. Will never want to buy or use any SDR/JPEG only device or software

[@sigismvnd]

Extremely based move by Apple!

[@kwinzman]

What would really help change the tide and seal the deal is for Mozilla assist Apple and enable it by default in Firefox. Right now Mozilla's official stance towards JPEG-XL is only neutral.

[@sodiboo]

I hope that people use JPEG XL just to spite chrome, and it genuinely becomes a worse browser because of it. It also gives me the idea of using WEI to block out chrome and any other browsers that implement it, and let anyone else in. In theory simple enough to bypass with an extension for anyone who really doesn't wanna or can't switch, but i would love to see that kind of protest deployed on a large scale

[@bits360wastaken]

Blocking out the vast majority of users isnt good for business. Recommending a different browser, and how to transition over smoothly instead sounds like a far better option.

[@RadikAlice]

I wish that'd work, but I know from personal experience people will blame the software and not those who refuse to implement stuff to make it work

[@sodiboo]

@@bits360wastaken I mean yeah, of course nobody is just going to make it seem like your website doesn't work at all, and rather have instructions for the less technical users. and I also don't think this will realistically happen, of course it's bad for business, but I just hope it does. because I believe that temporary business losses might be worth it for preserving an open web. and if they don't implement jpeg xl, I will definitely be using it just to spite them and contribute to the users demanding support for the format

[@DiThi]

I will definitely use JXL in my web projects, with regular jpeg/png fallbacks, so chrome users will experience the web slower than the rest.

[@vintprox]

​@@DiThidon't forget to plaster a giant watermark in the downgrade JPEG 😂

[@systemchris]

Googles skynet isnt so good at replying to unexpected situations

[@zeyadkenawi8268]

I think a captcha check is very necessary here to know that we're not talking to robots.

[@sanctionedforce1868]

from what i read months ago, jxl is one of the most impressive, efficient, and flexible formats i've ever heard of. efficient for processing, efficient for compression. flexibility was beyond impressive, unlimited color channels, formats, spaces, layers, animation iirc, and more. it's basically set to functionally replace formats like psd, ai, tiff, png, gif, and of course all previous iterations of jpeg AND be better than the originals by every metric that matters. maybe i'm misremembering, but i was shocked and couldn't believe adoption was so anemic.

[@komakaze1]

It may be because it can do so much that supporting it and testing all of its features becomes complicated?

[@sanctionedforce1868]

@@komakaze1 I expect that's true; quite a daunting list of features. I expect only a fraction of that feature set would be applicable and the implementation would need a means of gracefully degrading/ignoring features outside scope, like layers, or arbitrary color spaces. Browsers might need to collaborate on an acceptable level of functionality that users can expect when using the format, and that might be a means of differentiating from competitors. I will not be eager to experience the same teething issues png alpha channels had amongst browsers back in the day.

[@schemage2210]

Smaller image file sizes while maintaining quality, of course that matters and it really should be that simple! There is literally no downside to this, except somehow it hurts google's agenda????

[@GaryBox]

As a web designer I hear so many say we need to follow what Google tells us but they aren't even consistent. I still see websites ranking well that don't load fast, don't use ssl etc. Google says they want us to use next gen image formats like webp and avif yet they don't even accept the image types themselves in their Google my business tool. Any local business that adopts webp for images on their website will still need jpeg if they want to upload an image to their Google business page.

[@bbrodriges]

Google joins team “HD DVD” with their AVIF, if you know what I mean ;)

[@mcwolfbeast]

Even independent browsers like Pale Moon have added JPEG XL (very!) early because of the obvious benefits of the format. There was clear interest in the ecosystem. People have been waiting for this format and its feature set. People want this. Google just wanted to do Google and push their own "preferred" format.

[@Vjgtigers2]

Those indi companies be getting big now adays

[@Tony-Dev]

It's funny since there is an actual JPEG XL viewer chrome extension that enables JPEG XL

[@johnbash-on-ger]

Can it also be installed server-side and used by websites that way?

[@Tony-Dev]

@@johnbash-on-ger no unfortunately not. I think it would be better to get and compile source from github if your trying anything server side.

[@merthyr1831]

If chromium bugs refuses to reopen the old bug I might just open an account and request it myself. Not gonna let 'em bury this in bureaucratic open sauce bollocks.

[@yeahaddigirl]

I'm just waiting for the announcement that jpeg and webp get Google's DRM as features

[@ballyhoo]

Google will still be able to mess things up due to the ever-increasing amount of applications that insist on using Electron as their base. Millions of highly-used apps now can't use JXL because it was taken out of Chrome (and Electron just copies wherever Chrome does). There is nothing that any of those app developers can do about it. The same goes for when Chrome decides to drop support for a platform. Suddenly millions of Electron applications that were working perfectly fine will arbitrarily no longer work on that platform, regardless of what the individual app developers want. But yet developers still seem determined to use Electron for the exact same short-sighted reasons that Web devs adopted Macromedia Flash back in the day (and look how long it took us to rid ourselves of that mess).

[@DiThi]

Yes, there's something those app developers can do about it: Using an Electron fork that has JXL added. I used Electron in the past and it's not about shortsightedness , it's about development time. I was able to reuse the vast majority of my tools, libraries, experience, etc. and I wouldn't have been able to do those apps without the time that it afforded me. But I don't love the idea of shipping a browser with each app. Fortunately that will be a thing of the past for me because I'm switching to Nim, which can both compile natively and to javascript.

[@PanosPitsi]

Electron doesn’t “copy chrome” electron is literally chromes v8 engine yanked outside of it. You can run js in other engines too but they are all trash, and guess what if somebody hires me to make a discord clone I am using electron not c++ or whatever.

[@lukchem]

I am an Apple Beta User and just went on the jpegxl test page via safari and yes I can view, download and open jxl files. I was curious so I did further testing. I just downloaded google chrome and found out that it can also view the image which is kinda weird but I guess since chrome on iPhone and iPad also uses the webkit engine so maybe using the beta automatically forces the newer version of the engine even on third party browsers. I also tried older versions of iOS and iOS 17 also supports it but iOS 16 doesn’t.

[@ayoubthegreat]

It seems that there is no reason not to adopt jpeg xl from the beginning. It's weird that the people who want to use it have to wait for the large companies to use it first.

[@somethingcoolgoeshere]

Does this mean the old jpeg air fryer memes will die?

[@yanlucasdf]

jpeg xl be like:jpeg with transparency and gif capability

[@powerpower-rg7bk]

A couple of pieces of context need to be added to the discussion. The first is Microsoft's attempt to patent parts of JPEG XL's algorithm which has generally been seen as a bad thing. This mirrors Microsoft's previous efforts with JPEG XR where portions of XR are patented by Microsoft. The other bit of context is the existence of the JPEG XS format that has appear a few years after the announcement of JPEG XL (and partially to thwart MS patent shenanigans). I'm unsure of support for JPEG XS in the Apple and Google ecosystems but I have seen it used in the wild for some video codec work in current generation products.

[@burprobrox9134]

I’m not legitimately certain many humans work at google. I believe it’s been running with very little direct input only when the ai truly fucks up

[@robynrox]

Imagine a world where the market share of Chrome falls because they're not providing the latest and greatest features. I'd kind of like to see that world. Chrome's dominant market share in the browser world I think is harmful.

[@LillyAnarkitty]

The FOSS community proves that cooperation is better than competition

[@dasrael]

Google has been taking L's for a long time my guy.

[@alerikaisattera1465]

Not surprising given that Apple support many other formats, including ones that no one wants or needs, such as HEIC and JP2

[@joshuapettus6973]

The first guy with the mind numbing responses was obviously a triage person. Such inane responses probably is his job...

[@KanokYT]

Google playing to type and being the villain. Not surprised, but at the same time, if this helps with web optimization, why remove it? Personally, there's nothing wrong with opening up a discussion on it, so why they are so hesitant to do so is baffling. I don't like Apple by any stretch of the imagination, but good on them for at least trying to do something with this format that has great potential for the web.

[@nisagomez4366]

This shows why I don’t work with others. I value my quality of life.

[@BUDA20]

this garbage that google did pisses me off, JPEG-XL is great, I already use it for a lot of personal things, like Screenshots

[@drp111]

Hope to see broader JPEG XL support soon

[@morsikpl]

Jezz... Apple should finally implement stupid SVG support, because you can't even open them in Preview and there are no thumbnails in Finder for SVG. That's so going back 15-20 years ago for someone like me who switched from Linux I used for last 15 years. It's just kinda funny that Linux which is considered very-desktop-unfriendly has *a lot* of more *very basic* features than this glofiried macOS!

[@Zippy_Zolton]

they're really dragging their heels over this...

[@jacketpotato2058]

why do two different users write their responses in the exact same way. it’s a bit weird, is google’s policy to end emails with Thanks!! for something??

[@grandsome1]

At least jxl is open source, but avif (also open source) already has a lot of support. WebP isn't that bad especially its lossless version but support is ridiculously weak on non-browser.

[@unfa00]

I'm 100% for all browsers but Chrome supporting something and users complaining to Google about it. Google has way too much power over the web already. It's not a healthy situation. So even though I fundamentally disagree with Apple's approach to pretty much everything - this is one instance where I am glad they stepped in.

[@Lampe2020]

7:52 Maybe the OP meant "ca" ("circa"/"about" in the sense of close to that number)?

[@iNdepDev]

I don't really care what google wants. I removed all chromium based shit from my computer years ago.

[@theepicslayer7sss101]

sites just need to switch to JPEG XL (breaking the internet) and google will send actual humans to read that thread instead of bots.

[@alexmsmartins]

Everything would be explained if Bard was on the driver's seat. It is actually the only reasonable explanation for the high concentration of idiocy in that thread.

[@brunoais]

13:03: Exactly. They are not the good guys. It just happens it will help them... A LOT. That's the single only reason they are doing it. MONEY

[@OlafsLeftArm]

This is what happens when you give customer (or what ever in this case) support to India XD

[@nekothegamer]

wait Gnome web has JPEG XL support?? amazing!

[@danielberglv259]

Well if Apple supports it and if Firefox, Brave, Edge and others add this support, then Google will have no option other than adding it as well. But I see why they don't care, they already have their WEBP format. And if they add support for JPEG XL, then their discontinued list will get smaller. And Google really love their discontinued list.

[@darukutsu]

cca is shortcut for circa/ka so approx. in english to my knowlege.

Circa is also an English word, but yes, it's synonymous with approximately. I'm thinking cca may just be a typo of ca. At least I'm not familiar with cca as an abbreviation.

[@darukutsu]

@ in my country we use cca so probably not native English speaker.

[@multivariateperspective5137]

Reminds me of the fire wire USB thing from back in the day Unfortunately, when there is greed and politics involved the best of Nolan, he doesn’t always win but hopefully this time is different and XL takes over because it’s far far superior

[@SirWrexes]

That Pasurla guy may just be a Chat-GPT powered bot to answer issues at this point lmao

[@carver3489]

JPEG XL is great 918kB PNG -> 182kB JXL

[@henrickbull]

This is what happens when one browser gets dominance and one company can dictate the future of the web? Have we learned nothing from Internet Explorer?