|
|
|
|
|
|
by cflat
1322 days ago
|
|
|
This is pure politics. The AOM want proof of loyalty and shipping a competing image format threatens that loyalty pact. It’s also incrementalism at its finest. “We already shipped av1, adding a single frame decode is minor overhead” is the likely rationale. But it misses the point that images are gazed at while video is moving and can get away with a lot of quality sins that you can’t with images. But worse is that av1 is full of optional features. Sure the client could implement it, but how can you know? Even the lauded animated avif is horribly broken across the ecosystem because of this optionality — and there isn’t any way to tell a priori if the browser can support animated avif. Or 444 avif. Or ycocg avif. It’s just down right broken as an image format falling to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|