[ChrisNorstrom]

Even if it's significantly better, do the means justify the ends? On massive sites with millions of images, like flickr or facebook, converting all their jpegs into webps to save on bandwidth and speed would mean that they would have to duplicate every single jpeg image (keep the jpegs for older browsers) with a webp copy to serve to newer browsers that support webp. But by doing that you're nearly doubling the HD space of the entire service. More HDs, more servers, more electricity, more personnel. So whatever money was saved on bandwidth (which is getting cheaper all the time) is negated by the architecture required to pull off the transition.

I feel like this is one of those: "good inventions that are better than the competition but have no demand from the market."

[ronaldj]

I think that for some interactive content, we could do definitely utilize WeP's lossy alpha channel format. The one thing that pops up in my mind are filmstrip animations, where you make a animation using JS and a single image that has all your frames. This allows you to control its playback with JS and gives you better image quality than GIF. Right now we can use JPEG compression for this, but this means we have to bake the page background into the frames or use a huge PNG.

With enough browser support an animation like this could just fallback to a single PNG for older browsers and newer browsers would be better experiences.

[VikingCoder]

"Amazon found that it increased revenue by 1% for every 100 milliseconds of improvement."