[aab0]

> I don't think they're compressing this and decompressing it client side.

The speed quotes made it sound like client-side was a concern. Why would you go to all the effort of devising a new image compression format saving 20%+ storage and on the wire, and not have it decompressed client-side, especially when you control the client?

[dgoldstein0]

My rough understand, as someone who works at Dropbox and knows some of the people who worked on this (but isn't directly involved), is that this currently only runs on our servers. The perf requirements are primarily that we don't want to slow down syncing / downloads significantly - and also want to keep the CPU cost under control. As is, the savings in storage space should easily pay for the extra compute power required.