This is in follow up to the following bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856375
(In reply to porneL from comment #191)
For example pngquant/libimagequant takes quality setting identical to
libjpeg/cwebp, so you can easily batch lossy compression of millions of PNG
images.
This is good news of course, however WebP is already integrated into PHP
already, but compressed PNG isn't. So my point still stands - I cannot use this
technique in this environment.
(In reply to Zach Lym from comment #192)
Facebook trialed WebP but their users rejected it because they
could not share the images with friends using browsers incapable of dealing
with WebP images.
This is a valid concern for sites like Facebook and imgur, however for websites focused
on presentation rather than user generated content it's not such a big deal if users
cannot open images downloaded from the website without first googling for
"webm" or waiting until such a time that more consumer apps support the format.
Adding WebP would add yet another defacto-nonstandard-standard to the mix.
Daala being years away from being ready is why it has a real chance of
gaining any acceptance. Even VP9 and HVEC are both going to struggle for
any adoption given the dominance of H.264 and the same is true for WebP vs
Jpeg and PNG. It's like Beta vs VHS or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD: you are battling
over features and specs in a war of market forces.
This is nothing like Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD because is isn't a choice between two
competing upgrades to a single standard. What we have is an opportunity to
replace both PNG and JPEG with one image standard that has the features of
both. Now there are absolutely no guarantees that it will take of, and it does
mean compiling a little more code, but the potential pay-offs are huge.
To force Apple and IE to accept any new standard requires overwhelming
force, something we have no hope of kindling until the next major
standards/technological refresh. We might as well save our resources for
when we have a chance at winning.
This isn't an argument against adoption, it's just statement of fact: when
developing websites, Microsoft and Apple browsers will always require
workarounds. In this case we would confirm that the browser accepts the image
format, and send either a WebP, PNG or JPEG depending on needs.
One thing that's been brought up previously was what happens with VP9? I'm
trying to find out now if WebP will adopt it, and if it will be backwards
compatible with WebP VP8 images. I suspect it would be, if it's adopted.
