Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.
At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viability of getting the format universally supported.
I'm not a fan of WebP, mind, but the idea that support for it is dreadful is strange to me.
Personally, the fact that it was Googles idea means I’m going to hold it at arms length, if not avoid it entirely. The web should be built on open standards.
Seems to be a similar level of "works everywhere" for me, with the exception of web browsers this time.
I don't think AVIF is a good example of this though. All major browser makers were members of the consortium that created AVIF.
But it was a tremendous amount of effort and promotion on Google's end for a relatively narrow format.
I love this phrase thank you.
With Google's study [1], by Google's Engineer, JPEG XL is no where near good enough compared to AVIF.
None of the above facts have changed since Google Chrome's decision on JPEG XL.
/S
[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html
Yes that is why I had "/S" at the end.
But it still more of a response than Google has given in ages.
There's a browser joke here somewhere, I'm sure.