> HEIF is backed by the MPEG organization and, yes, involves patent licensing.
Right. So as a Internet-format, it's pretty much dead in the water then.
I think that might be a controversial claim. For example, in this comparison:: http://nokiatech.github.io/heif/comparison.html
HEIF and JPEG seem almost equal. HEIF wins on blurry parts of the image because it introduces fewer artifacts. But JPEG wins in noisy parts of the image because the artifacts look like the original signal. The last image shows this well - the white floor texture is blurred to nothing sooner in the HEIF image.
That this aspect of the file-format also makes the patent-status if the content uncertain or questionable (until inspected or attempted opened) is IMO something which makes this sound even less undesirable as a web-format.
In this case he hasn't really done much more than summarise the official release notes, so OP may as well have linked to those.
In pretty much every case. It's rare that Michael actually contributes meaningfully to an article he posts. It's almost always just some copy/paste of the original source.