Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Look at poor webp

What about it?

"Lossless WebP is typically 26% smaller than PNG, while lossy WebP can be 25-34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality levels"

This literally saves houndred of thousand of cost, bandwith, electricity every month on the internet. In fact, I strongly belive that this is one of the greatest contributions from Google to society just like ZSTD from Facebook.

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study






I don't think the commenter you replied to disagrees with any of that. They were talking about poor rates of adoption, not its feature set.

The biggest driver of adoption are features.

"WebP is used by 16.7% of all websites. This means that while it's a popular image format, it's not yet the dominant format, with JPEG still holding the majority share at 73.0%, according to W3Techs. However, WebP offers significant advantages in terms of compression and file size, making it a preferred choice for many web developers. "


Those numbers are from Google. Third parties have not found WebP to be as good as Google claims.

> equivalent quality levels

Therein lies the lie.

Image and video compression comparisons are like statistics with the right corpus and evaluation criteria you can should whatever narrative you want to push.


Society wholeheartedly thanks Google for saving costs for Google

It saved money for our company too.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: