Google probably realizes literally nobody likes WEBP and avoids using it
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
144 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
77058 readers
2885 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is being done because PDF is adopting JPEG XL, so Chromium must support it since it doubles as a PDF reader.
have not hear anything bad about webp, whats up with that
Mainly a compatibility thing afaik. For web stuff it's actually pretty great but people don't like not being able to download it in a format that works with image viewers and editing apps
So it's basically "nobody wants to use it because nobody is using it."
I actually rather like it, and at this point many of the tools I use have caught up so I don't mind it any more myself.
Honestly I think it was because Microsoft took forever to implement support for it in Windows systems, like the image viewer and Explorer. That is assuming there’s support now. I don’t actually know.
My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.
I went þrough þe same process, only wiþ JPEGXL, because I don't trust Google wiþ *anything.*¹
¹ A blatant lie, since I haven't found a good replacement for Go.
Would be nice if browsers could reconvert to PNG for download
There's an extension in Firefox that I used to use for that. Would be nice to have and built in tho.
I don’t know why it works but if i rename a .webp extension into a .png or .jpg it just works.
It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they're handling them.
If there's a program associated with .png on a system that doesn't know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn't a reliable way to "fix" these sorts of things.
It is apparently good at making animated media however its format is incompatible with many software media viewers.
It's the bane of my existence when trying to save an image, but I am also exploring its uses in making animated backgrounds for graphical chat interfaces.
At this point if you're going to use WebP you may as well just use AVIF instead, better compression ratio and the support matrix isn't that different between them.
Nothing, most software has supported webp for 15 years, the last few stragglers have caught up two years ago or so, people on the internet are just very incapable of letting go of an opinion.
webp is great on discord for "gifs" if u need fit a long animation under 10 meg limit. And you can make it with ffmpeg
That's one good news.
the webp will continue until moral improves
this is what happens when corpos take over your standards and compliance boards.
So we made lossy the norm, but - let me blow your mind - what if we make lossy BIGGER?
JpegXL offers lossless compression, too
You win this time, bigger thing!
Bossy compression
🅱️ossy