Webp is pretty great actually. Supporting a 32bit alpha channel means I’ve actually managed to reduce file sizes of what were formerly PNGs by something like 80%, which drastically improved performance (and the size of my project). I don’t get where the complaint of image quality came from either, as it seems to perform better than JPEG at the same file size.
The worst part is that you missed the real problem with the format: the CPU overhead (and therefore the energy cost) of handling the file. A high-traffic site can dramatically increase the energy required for the images processed by the thousands/millions of clients in a single day, which places a drain on the grid and bumps up CO₂ (yes, this is really a thing that people measure now).
Basically Google invented the format to externalise their costs. Now, rather than footing the bill for bigger datacentres and greater bandwidth, they made everyone else pay for decompression.
That’s exactly the reasoning Google has followed with its development and promotion of webp. Unfortunately, whether the website cares or not, CO₂ emissions are markedly higher due to increased client energy consumption, and that does directly affect you, so it’s worth considering the implications of using webp in a popular site.
There are situations where the compression can benefit end users as well, such as loading less image data on a capped cellular plan. Transmission of data is not necessarily free for the recipient, either.
Webp is pretty great actually. Supporting a 32bit alpha channel means I’ve actually managed to reduce file sizes of what were formerly PNGs by something like 80%, which drastically improved performance (and the size of my project). I don’t get where the complaint of image quality came from either, as it seems to perform better than JPEG at the same file size.
The worst part is that you missed the real problem with the format: the CPU overhead (and therefore the energy cost) of handling the file. A high-traffic site can dramatically increase the energy required for the images processed by the thousands/millions of clients in a single day, which places a drain on the grid and bumps up CO₂ (yes, this is really a thing that people measure now).
Basically Google invented the format to externalise their costs. Now, rather than footing the bill for bigger datacentres and greater bandwidth, they made everyone else pay for decompression.
consider: the website doesn’t care how much energy the users use
That’s exactly the reasoning Google has followed with its development and promotion of webp. Unfortunately, whether the website cares or not, CO₂ emissions are markedly higher due to increased client energy consumption, and that does directly affect you, so it’s worth considering the implications of using webp in a popular site.
the data cost (fuck rural ISPs, but not enough for me to get musklink) is higher to me than the energy cost
There are situations where the compression can benefit end users as well, such as loading less image data on a capped cellular plan. Transmission of data is not necessarily free for the recipient, either.
I’d prefer any other format on the sole basis of “not maintained by <insert Corposcum>”.