

WebP: A new image format for the Web - pud
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/

======
dave1010uk
Here's a post from the Chromium blog [1], which has more details. It also
states how Google is already using it in Gmail, Picasa and instant search
previews.

Google is in a great position as they can write a spec, release a browser
implementing the spec and update their sites (which account for a substantial
portion of the web) in such a short time. In essence, there is no "chicken and
the egg" problem of who goes first.

This also happened with SPDY [2], which Chrome already supports and most
Google sites now use instead of HTTPS (for Chrome, at least).

I think we can expect Google to do everything they can to make the web faster.

[1] [http://blog.chromium.org/2011/05/webp-in-chrome-picasa-
gmail...](http://blog.chromium.org/2011/05/webp-in-chrome-picasa-gmail-with-
slew.html)

[2] <http://www.chromium.org/spdy>

~~~
nextparadigms
I agree that Google wants to make the web as fast as possible and as good as
possible because it's directly in their interest so they have incentive to do
it. They are mostly a web company after all.

On the other hand Apple and Microsoft don't really _have to_ want to make the
Internet as fast or good as possible. They either do it to support a different
agenda, like not needing Flash, or from a defensive point of view, like
Microsoft with IE9. But when it comes to choose between what they really care
about, they won't choose the web. That's why Apple hasn't made the embedded
browser as good as the main one, and Microsoft would rather use more
proprietary stuff to couple with their browser, like DirectX.

My point is it feels natural to these companies to use the web only to help
their main objective indirectly, which is different than simply wanting to
make the web better, while in Google's case, it feels natural to them to want
to improve the web because that interests them directly. So when it comes to
who really wants to improve the whole web the most, I'd trust Google.

------
dchest
I made a QuickLook plugin for it: <https://github.com/dchest/webp-quicklook>

------
kylec
I can understand Google's reason for making and promoting WebM, but is there
really a need for another image format? Yes, it may be X% smaller than JPEG
for the same image quality, but does that really matter? Compared with video,
the bandwidth for serving images is practically nothing, and even with
universal adoption by browser and operating system vendors it will still be
years before you can rely on all your clients having WebP support.

~~~
tobobo
I don't think there's any reason not to try to improve something even if its
satisfactory. Image formats are no exception - I don't think JPEG is the best
that can be done and I hope we have better options moving forward.

~~~
astrodust
It doesn't matter. Get over it. Leave it alone. Let it go.

There is a need for better image formats for photography, for gigatextures,
for voxels, for specialized cases, but not for general web use. This problem
is solved. Move along.

ASCII has served us well, it's still used now, and even though it's broken in
a lot of ways, UTF-8 addresses most of those to a degree that's satisfactory
enough we don't need people _inventing_ new character encoding systems.

Between GIF, PNG and JPEG you have what you need. Don't cry over a few wasted
bytes or a few smudgy pixels.

~~~
pshc
I could say the same thing about H.264. Why should we bother making better
video codecs for general movie viewing use? Let it go. We can just add more
data layers to Blu-rays.

And it's not like JPEG or ASCII or UTF-8 or anything we use today is going to
suddenly disappear if we add new browser support. Why not strive for
excellence?

------
astrodust
Until they sort out the video tag and the audio tag they should keep away from
messing up the img tag in the same way.

~~~
pshc
Introducing a new image format won't "mess up" anything. And even if they were
doing a stellar job with the video and audio tags, it would have no bearing on
WebP.

------
skalpelis
So does this mean that Chrome will drop support for JPEG, PNG and GIF? I mean,
that was the case with the video tag.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Chrome only dropped support for H.264 because it would incur patent fees which
many consider incompatible with the way web technology has developed
previously.

They didn't, for example, drop support for Theora which like the image formats
you name, is older and has less advanced compression technology but is still
"free" in many senses that some consider important for interoperable web
technologies.

------
protomyth
How is WebP better than JPEG XR (HD Photo) which already has an ISO standard?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
JPEG XR appears to be aimed at being a less resource intensive alternative to
JPEG-2000 for camera manufacturers and semi-pro photographers. WebP seems to
be setting itself up to be used to deliver images via the web.

Currently XR has a lossless mode, 4:4:4 color support, tiling and alpha which
make it more featureful than WebP but those have all been announced for future
versions with some features having experimental implementations already.

On the other hand XR, at least the currently available encoders, seems to
perform very well under PSNR tests but fails compared with even JPEG in SSIM
tests.

<http://sites.google.com/site/dlimagecomp/ms-ssim-results>

It also worth noting that being an ISO standard holds far less status ever
since Microsoft bent the procedures beyond breaking point for OOXML.

~~~
protomyth
I don't see an ISO standard as being less than it was. I think the big win for
JPEG XR is that their are some pretty good people who built it. If camera
manufactures adopt it, then I think it is going to be the default. I don't see
any real advantage to WebP.

