> > why do people hate webp? nobody ever complained about webm
> Back when WebM was introduced, browsers didn't natively support video
> playback, so a container format specifically designed for web use that
> could utilize low-bitrate encodings like VP8/VP9 was welcomed. Once
> 4chan adopted it in mid 2014, the rest was history
> Common image formats, on the other hand, have been supported by web
> browsers since the 90s, so there was no real need for another one -
> especially not one developed and heavily pushed by Google with the
> intention of REPLACING JPEG, PNG, and GIF (;´Д`)
This is the best and most succinct history of webm and explanation as
to why webp is bad ive seen. There are so many more reasons though, for
example; google and other CDN-like services MITM you to send you a webp
instead of a standard image format. Common software like VLC supported
webm very early so support was always good. Webms were never intended
to be used in professional applications like video editing.
Where as webp is not supported by anything outside of conversion programs
to convert them into standard formats. Webp adds another step in the
workflow of professional/creative usage of images. Imagine the time
spent collectively wasted by webp conversions when someone just needs
a transparent question mark clipart to use in their silly vidlii vid.
There are also far better alternatives to webp that are open source,
but still face the same issue of absolutely zero software support.
Webps have really disgusting compression artifacts that are way worse
than jpg. Also the tiny size savings of webp is not really a good
selling point considering hdds are so cheap now. With a standard image
format, you know what you are getting, but with webp you might be getting
and animated gif, a transparent png, a compressed jpg, or any goofy combo.
Reference: 2022/05/20(Fri) 05:47:09