To increase adoption they should not have limited this to the latest iPhone models. Why on earth can a one year old iPhone 15’s CPU not handle encoding JXL? It can encode 4K video in real time, so this should be no problem at all, right?
When I was in the android ecosystem, a 4 year old phone was "just barely" usable, and phones stopped being "fine" after about two years.
I'll give apple shit for a lot of things, and they could definitely do _more_ about e-waste... but this is as likely to be "we put the image encoder on the camera module, so it would have been slightly more work to backport to old phones"
As Apple explains on the new iPhone models, JPEG XL files are supported
on iOS 17 and later and macOS 14 and later.
The difference is JPEG XL is now part of the Apple's image pipeline for the camera in iPhone 16.
Any 3rd party photo app developer can support JPEG XL if they wish.
It's not just software, unlike in the PC world where going from 5W hardware decode to 50W software decode basically doesn't matter.
And we're not talking about video anyway, this is about ProRAW, a still image format.
Given apple design their own camera controllers and have their own chip design teams, I wouldn't be nearly so quick to conclude that.
I don't think that hardware support plays a role here. The fastest encoding modes of JPEG XL are ridiculously fast on software, and Apple's CPUs seem powerful enough.
For lossless mode, JXL's fast modes (-e1 and -e2) are fast. But their compression ratio is terrible. The higher levels are not usable in a camera in terms of speed. Of course, my favorite and many people's favorite in this regard is HALIC (High Availability Lossless Image Compression). It is a speed/compression monster. The problem is that for now it is closed source and there is no Google or similar company behind it.
The point of reference here is not PNG but lossless JPEG, which was the best available option in DNG before version 1.7 of the DNG spec. Lossless JPEG compresses worse (but faster) than PNG.
I don't know how HALIC works but if there is no FOSS implementation available that seems like a no-go.
AVIF is definitely not ahead for the high quality levels you'd use in photography. AVIF is ahead at lower quality levels.
> For lossless mode, JXL's fast modes (-e1 and -e2) are fast. But their compression ratio is terrible.
JXL lossless e1 is still a lot better than the lossless compression people tend to use for photos these days. Like Apple has been using Lossless JPEG, which sucks.
I read the parent's point of comparison in terms of speed, not quality.
Regarding older hardware, I addressed that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41611709
Costing the planet our future sustainability in the name of greed.
And all you have to say about it is a snark?
1. As another commenter points out, your device works exactly as it did before.
2. Nobody on the face of the earth is making a decision about whether or not to buy a new phone based on JPEG-XL support. The fact that you’d even entertain that either means you’re in too much of a bubble or you’re so blinded by Apple hatred that you’re willing to believe any contrived thing that paints the company in a negative light.
Stop it.
What the ... You are ignoring what I wrote while not contributing anything. What did you fail to comprehend? You should be addressing what I wrote. Apparently many other commenters did understand me. What does that tell us? You are just being a jerk.
> Stop it.
Seriously. You are not discussing things, and you are not sharing an opinion here. You should be the one taking a break and consider your behavior.
How does it feel defending one of the richest companies in the world, and realizing they wouldn't care if you dropped dead?
"Nobody" - is that you speaking for everyone?
Stop it.
adityaathalyo, welcome to the club of people who cannot bring up ecological concerns about tech on HN.
I use that on my 10th generation iPad and used it on the iPhone X that I had up until about two months ago when it got replaced with a 15 which does support the "charge to 80%" option. It works great.
The only minor annoyance I ran into was that the phones where the OS supports the 80% limit it will occasionally go to 100%, which they say is necessary to keep the battery level indicator calibrated. With the smart plug method you'll have to handle occasionally disabling the shortcut (or charging with the charger plugged straight into the outlet).
Just make sure to pick a smart plug that can be turned off from Shortcuts.
I think you are thinking of the "optimized charging" option, which tries to guess how long you will be leaving the phone on the charger and then pauses when it reaches 80% until it gets near the time it thinks you are going to take the phone off the charger and then charges up to 100%.
Advancements in compression algorithms also came with advancements in decompression speed. New algorithms like tANS are both compressing well, and have very fast implementations.
And generally smaller files decompress faster, because there's just less data to process.
And will people take more pictures because of the space savings leading to more power consumption from compressing and decompressing the photos?
Is this just greenwashing by Apple?
But I have now decided to take my photos off of Apple's servers as well as to take way way less photographs, if any. The climate of my near future is way more important than a photograph of my cat.
Secondly, you have an invalid assumption that the amounts of energy spent on compression have any real-world significance. Phones can take thousands of photos when working off a tiny battery, and most of it is spent on the screen. My rough calculation is that taking over a million photos takes less energy than there is in a gallon of gas.
Apart form that, compression cost is generally completely ignored, because files are created only once, but viewed (decompressed) many many times over.
Smaller files save storage space. Storage has costs in energy and hardware.
Smaller files are quicker to transfer, and transfer itself can be more energy intensive than compression. It's still small in absolute numbers.