Comment on Chrome, Firefox and other browsers affected by critical WebP vulnerability

• Kyoyeou@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  May I Ask why people don’t like webp? I don’t know the reason? To my eyes now it is a more ecological way of having pictures because of their lower weight?

  source

  • Gawdl3y@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s a better format than JPEG, GIF, or PNG, while doing the jobs of all of those, but better (in most cases), and is an open format. It also has wide compatibility nowadays. The only major downside is a lot of social media services don’t even think about it being a potential format due to a lack of awareness/wide usage, leading to a degraded experience when someone shares a WebP somewhere (lack of auto-embedding as an example). I suspect this is why it gets a lot of hate here, which is unfortunate because it’s not at all the fault of the format.

    AVIF (based on AV1) is the up-and-coming format that beats WebP in most cases now, but support isn’t quite there yet (mostly due to Apple), and it has the same problems for social media as WebP. HEIF (based on HEVC) is also good, but is heavily patent-encumbered and not as open.

    source

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      one important tidbit in this whole situation that sheds a lot of light on where and why is adopted: webp is Google’s horse, jpegxl is adobe’s horse. that’s why jpegxl has poor web support, and why webp pisses off designers.

      source

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It doesn’t piss off designers, but we’re pissed at Adobe for making us search for and download plugins to support it.

        Seriously, fuck Adobe.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Dee@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I know I get annoyed by webp because Telegram processes it as a sticker instead of a normal image. That’s my only gripe with it, but like you said that’s more Telegram than the actual format.

      source
    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      AVIF only beats WebP for heavily compressed images and it doesn’t beat it by much.

      If you want high quality images - then WebP is way better than AVIF. And as bandwidth improves and images don’t really get much bigger (we’re already at the limit of human visual perception for reasonable file sizes) for me that makes WebP a better compression algorithm than AVIF.

      source
    • theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      IDK what you mean by lack of auto-embedding, the support for it has been pretty fantastic from the start. I literally learned about it because I was looking though supported formats for a library, and it’s been in the list ever since

      source
  • ultratiem@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Proprietary formats are the bane of humanity. No one company, doesn’t matter, should have control over a file format. They should all be free and universally interoperable. A PSD, for example, should present and store data the same way if used on Photoshop or Pixelmator.

    Companies are not your friends.

    source

    • Gawdl3y@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      WebP is not proprietary. It’s an open format, is not patent-encumbered, and its reference implementation/libraries are open-source. It is driven mostly by Google, similar to Chromium.

      source

      • ultratiem@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They took the open source WebKit to develop Chrome and Chromium.

        How did that turn out?

        Google wants to own images. Doesn’t matter if they made the licensing whatever. They make webp. They have a personal vested interest in control.

        You trust Google???

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This is just me, but when I download a PNG I know it’s lossless, when I download a jpeg I know it is lossy but probably a “photo-like” image, a gif? You get it.

    One firmat to rule them all will get you badly compressed pixel graphics and unnecessary large “photo” images and so on, not because the format is bad, but if it lets you do so, people will (and companies obviously).

    Most images on the internet are way under a MB, is there really that important to lower it slightly?

    source