>I don't actually have this problem personally - all my apps seem to handle it fine
I heard this argument against WebP about 3 times, each time I asked people what software exactly do they use that doesn't support WebP, they told me, I checked the support (downloaded the software and opened/edited WebP file), and it did support WebP.
I deemed this "I hate WebP" just a comment bait argument in social networks.
There was a multiple year timespan where webp was being used on websites, but local software (especially image viewers/phone gallery apps) wouldn't render webp. The format's poor reputation is sadly earned.
> I deemed this "I hate WebP" just a comment bait argument in social networks.
Go try adding a webp image to a Google doc and then reconsider your position.
>Go try adding a webp image to a Google doc and then reconsider your position.
Lacking support for WebP or for other common media is a flaw of a specific service.
Many websites accept videos only in mp4 + h264 + aac audio for some reason, while there are many other video formats and codecs which could be used on the web and in general. That doesn't mean the other formats or codecs are worse or annoying.
Ok? You originally said you'd never seen evidence of poor webp compability so you dismissed complaints out of hand. Now you've seen evidence, so you've immediately moved on to a different argument so you can dismiss complaints out of hand.
You have now seen evidence of poor webp compatibility. It exists. The people you said were making it up to bait you into commenting were probably being sincere. That's the entire point of the comment. The end.
I haven't seen missing support of WebP in software I'm using, and also asked people of the software they're using to test it and check for WebP support some months ago.
I was curious because I use WebP pretty extensively for many years, and haven't seen any issues with it.
I don't consider web services to be a software. It's no news that many services don't support wide variety of formats, it's their decision. Missing WebP support is a minor inconvenience compared to other missing features of web services.
The article is about self-hosted website as far as I understand, so it doesn't matter what the external services support or not.
That seems needlessly uncharitable. Isn't the more obvious explanation that they tried using it in a program, hit a failure, cached that result and never retried?
WebP have been in use for many years. It's good for still pictures, but its animation capabilities are very limited, because it's based on a much simplified subset of VP8 video codec.
AVIF on the contrary has great animation support. It's essentially a AV1 video without sound, but with all the benefits of <img> browser tag.
Very detailed video on Russian phones with built-in CallerID systems, which usually had features far beyond number identification (metronome, guitar tuner, alarm clock, music composer, voice changing).
The video is interesting not only from the historical, but also from technological and programming point of view.
Padlock hash engine can only hash the whole data, not a block of data (not init + update + update + ... + final), so the OpenSSL developer hacked up the MMU to prevent the CPU from accessing next regions and terminate the processing, emulating update() call :)
reply