308
Here comes a new JPEG challenger (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For anyone curious - https://flif.info/

EDIT: am a dumbass, JPGXL extends from FLIF

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Idk Google for sure does a lot of that but do open image standards give them any control?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Google literally has a long history of promoting open formats to eventually close those open formats and make them less open.

    GoogleTalk originally supported XMPP and then XMPP support was dropped when they changed it to "Google Hangouts."

    Android was originally open source and still largely is, but now they're not publishing the device information for Pixel devices, putting actually open operating systems like LineageOS and GraphiteOS in the position of having to reverse engineer drivers to be able to move forward.

    Chrome was originally a lot more open as well, but as Google gained market share dominance with their web browser, they made it slowly more and more closed off with only Chromium being really open, and they also used that market position to start to push their own solutions as web standards (what they've done with WEBP, actually) instead of having community input from the W3C.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    A standardized file format isn't comparable to them changing software they own though. They can't "take back" WEBP and it's well-supported by basically everything these days. There's zero risk of a rug pull, so why wouldn't you use it when it's objectively better at compression compared to something like jpeg and gif?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    You don't need to be involved in an open standard to extend it in your own standard. It really doesn't matter who made the open standard, it's open. If Google decides to extend the standard, the old standard will still be around for everybody to use. In the same vein it doesn't matter who developed XMPP, Google would have extended it one way or another.

    EEE is a terrible thing but I don't see how using an open image standard has anything to do with that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    How does dropping XMPP support give them more over XMPP? Etc.

    Usually the concern is over things they continue to own in some way. Like your Chrome example.

    But the Chrome example doesn't really apply nearly as much as the XMPP would. And I'm not getting the point being made about how this allows them undue control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I wasn't there for it, but this opinion piece has a pretty good story about the whole thing. https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html

    Basically, once Google had most of the regular users, and had convinced many of the XMPP users to switch to them, they just cut off support for xmpp, effectively neutering any growth it may have had without their influence.

    To compare that to webp, it would be pretty easy for them to fork their webp into a closed source "2.0" and most everyone would be switched over to that version without even having a say in it. Sure, original WebP would still exist, but since nobody uses/supports it, it's basically dead in the water anyways. This sounds awful and unlikely, but it's literally in their playbook, and it is a thing they have done several times. Android, chrome, XMPP, etc..

    It's just as likely that Google keeps WebP as open standard for all time as it is that Google remakes it into a closed source tool that only their closed systems can use. The fact that they have a history of being awful is why we need to keep competing standards around, even if they're just not as good or as widely spread around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Also, they regularly try to sidestep the W3C web standards commission or use their market position to influence W3C standards to push for their own standards over competing standards. I feel this point cannot be understated that their attempts to dictate web standards to their benefit directly undermines user choice and truly free standards that aren't open to undue influence from one company with market dominance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent