this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
80 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37585 readers
332 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 38 points 1 month ago (18 children)

Anyone have a text summary?

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 134 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

JPEG is getting ~~old~~ long in the tooth, which prompted the creation of JPEG XL, which is a fairly future-proof new compression standard that can compress images to the same file size or smaller than regular JPEG while having massively higher quality.

However, JPEG XL support was removed from Google Chrome based browsers in favor of AVIF, a standalone image compression derived from the AV1 video compression codec that is decidedly not future-proof, having some hard-coded limitations, as well as missing some very nice to have features that JPEG XL offers such as progressive image loading and lower hardware requirements. The result of this is that JPEG XL adoption will be severely hamstrung by Google's decision, which is ultimately pretty lame.

[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 87 points 1 month ago (5 children)

And here we have a clear example of how Chrome's almost monopoly is a bad thing for us.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not almost monopoly.

Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,

- the US govt

[–] Steve@communick.news 27 points 1 month ago

Monopolies don't require 100% of a market. Just enough to effectively manipulate a market.

One firm might only be 10% of a market. But if every other firm is only 1-2%, that 10% will have an outsized monopolistic ability to manipulate that market.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AV1 Image File Format is an open, royalty-free image file format

While I am by no means trying to defend Google, or their monopoly, I'm struggling to see how this time is a "clear example" of monopolistic behaviour?

Like, take for contrast the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) image format HEIC, which Apple has adopted as it's main high-res format on iOS. It's proprietary, and that fact is indeed worrying. However, the only reason I can figure out for Google's move here being a 'bad' thing, is if you're nostalgic about the .jpg extension...

[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 14 points 1 month ago

I didn't mean the choice of image format is a monopolistic behavior, but that the monopoly puts google in a position that any choice they make, be it a good or bad one, becomes an industry standard, without others having any choice in it.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope an opensource, non-C/C++ browser will pop up that can claw back from Chrome/Chromium. It's about time.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] Markaos@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why not just say Rust? There isn't really anything else that would provide good enough performance for a browser engine with modern heavy webpages while also fixing some major pain point of C/C++

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Go is not an option? Zig neither? Even Java would be better (it's used in high-frequency trading) than C++.

Rust is not the only contender.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] Markaos@lemmy.one 1 points 1 month ago

Zig didn't come to my mind when I was writing my comment and I agree that it's probably a decent option (the only issue I can think of is its somewhat small community, but that's not a technical issue with the language).

My argument against Go and Java is garbage collection - even if Java's infamous GC pause can apparently be worked around with a specialized JVM, I'm pretty sure it still comes at the cost of higher memory usage and wasted CPU cycles compared to some kind of reference counting or Rust's ownership mechanism (not sure about the proper term for that). And higher memory usage is definitely not something I want to see in my browser, they're hungry enough as is.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Other browser vendors like Microsoft and Brave and Opera could've added XL support if they wanted to. It's not just Google, none of the browser makers want to deal with yet another image format. Only Safari supports the protocol, and even then they don't support animated images.

IE and pre-Chromium Edge implemented JPEG XR and nobody followed. Safari implemented JPEG 2000 and nobody followed. Implementing an image codec is a lot of work and adds attack surface for hackers, nobody really wants to do that unless they have to.

We have JPEG, we have WebP if you need smaller images than JPEG, and we have AVIF if you want something smaller than PNG for photographs. Unless all of the competition implements JPEG XL again, I don't think they have any reason to bother. Especially with the whole patent vagueness.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)