Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ksec 888 days ago
It is not really awful. It is just way over hyped, over promised and under delivered. WebP was better than standard JPEG. But JPEG also improved via many other encoders such as MozJPEG. And it wasn't obvious what the advantage were, or it was so little it really shouldn't be included as a standard feature. Mozilla made their case back then with many testing and data point.
2 comments
spider-mario 886 days ago
> WebP was better than standard JPEG.

Feature-wise, maybe (transparency, animation). Compression-wise, not really (better at low qualities because the artifacts are somewhat less objectionable than JPEG’s, but worse at high qualities).

Lossless WebP (practically a separate codec) is nice though, albeit 8-bit only.

link
izacus 888 days ago
Transparency was a massive advantage to the point it became default compressed format for e.g. Android apps.
link