@bohwaz
Some think that I go way over the top, but I want to have as little Google in my life as possible. I do not consider it an open format: it only has one widely used implementation — the one developed and wholly controlled by Google.
I don't think we should depend on Google for codecs too, especially ones providing minimal compression benefits.
Now that JPEG XL and AV1 exist — better both compression-wise and in terms of governance, I see no point in adopting either WebP or VP9.
@bohwaz
Some think that I go way over the top, but I want to have as little Google in my life as possible. I do not consider it an open format: it only has one widely used implementation — the one developed and wholly controlled by Google.
I don't think we should depend on Google for codecs too, especially ones providing minimal compression benefits.
Now that JPEG XL and AV1 exist — better both compression-wise and in terms of governance, I see no point in adopting either WebP or VP9.
Gregory's Server
@bohwaz
Some think that I go way over the top, but I want to have as little Google in my life as possible. I do not consider it an open format: it only has one widely used implementation — the one developed and wholly controlled by Google.
I don't think we should depend on Google for codecs too, especially ones providing minimal compression benefits.
Now that JPEG XL and AV1 exist — better both compression-wise and in terms of governance, I see no point in adopting either WebP or VP9.
@cuchaz
@bohwaz
Some think that I go way over the top, but I want to have as little Google in my life as possible. I do not consider it an open format: it only has one widely used implementation — the one developed and wholly controlled by Google.
I don't think we should depend on Google for codecs too, especially ones providing minimal compression benefits.
Now that JPEG XL and AV1 exist — better both compression-wise and in terms of governance, I see no point in adopting either WebP or VP9.