Hacker News Reader

> This rules out JPEG XL's lossless advantage, which in practice is only roughly 11.9% smaller than lossless WebP anyway

> It cannot be worth bringing a new image codec to browsers to save 12%

What? 12% is huge.

Yes but the decode time is orders of magnitude more.

who cares, you're not displaying 60 of them per second

If the bandwidth saving gets you the image 10ms sooner, but due to the decoding time it takes 70ms longer to display, you're losing.

And in the cached cache, the bandwidth saving is gone, and you're still paying the decoding penality.

Right, so in that hypothetical scenario where your bandwidth is over ~40MB/s, the bandwidth saving isn’t so relevant. That sounds a bit tautological?

I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from. But, in the cached case, the download time is very fast, yes.

And you might want the cache to either take up less space or hold more images.