I hate webp and the reason is that websites use the file extension jpg, but serve you a webp instead, which is bullshit, since none of my image viewers (sxiv, w3mimgdisplay) can open it. It's not a problem, I can convert those files (ffmpeg -i in.webp out.jpg), but the pure evil of hiding an incompatible format behind a compatible extension is what gets my blood boiling. If you want to serve webp, fine, but don't lie about it you fucking cunts.

Comments

Rambler wrote on March 21, 2021 at 10:00 AM

THIS

I save a lot of memes and dumb shit from places like reddit and deal with this all too often.

Wingless wrote on May 9, 2021 at 4:21 AM

Webp is not any better than other formats (many say worse), less compatible, yet Google made it and promotes it and apparently does weird SEO blackmail behind the scenes for it. Question I have is why???

Tech companies only do things for one reason, and that reason is to spy on you. But how does Google spy on you with an unwanted image format?

Wahaha OP wrote on May 9, 2021 at 10:12 AM

Maybe someone at the top of Google bet someone else at the top of Google a dollar that he could make jpg and png go away from the Internet. I think he lost the bet.

BlackWinnerYoshi wrote on March 25, 2021 at 12:00 PM

Am I the only one who does not care about WebP images? I mean, IrfanView requires a plugin to read and save WebP images, but it's not really a problem, and Paint.NET natively supports WebP images since 4.2.5. But those software are only for Windows, so I might have an issue with WebP when I'll switch to Linux, I don't know.

Wahaha OP wrote on March 25, 2021 at 2:33 PM

If it was supported by everything, I wouldn't care. But it's now a decade old and still not supported by anything installed on my system designed to actually view images.

Also, since the storage gains from webp are kinda marginal - there are even situations when a jpg will be way smaller than a webp, it just adds to the grudge. If it at least delivered on the promises, people would maybe care to support it. But the way it is, a decade after its introduction, it's just a nuisance.

Also, cutting out trackers, ads and the scripts enabling them you could save way more traffic, than by shaving off a kilobyte or two per picture. Last I checked webp doesn't even support progressive loading. That's the feature that loads jpgs line by line on a slow connection, so you might decide to cancel after seeing half the picture.

BlackWinnerYoshi wrote on March 25, 2021 at 5:50 PM

Okay, sure, not many things support WebP images even after a decade of its existence, and that the storage savings are marginal compared to removing trackers/ads/scripts, but I think you messed up baseline and progressive JPEG definitions. This might be a misunderstanding, though.

Anyway, progressive loading actually makes JPEG load the full image, just with decreased quality, unlike baseline JPEG, which loads half of the image. Here is a comparison I have made.

(note: I halved those images using dd:

dd bs=[c/2] count=1 if=if.jpg of=of.jpg

where [c/2] is the number of bytes in the image, halved and rounded up.)

Wahaha OP wrote on March 25, 2021 at 8:09 PM

Interesting, I didn't know the proper terminology for this feature.