@manifold ...wait, how does webp replace webp?
-F
@Felthry i mistyped and meant PNG! oops
@manifold oh that makes more sense
honestly the big thing we don't like about webp is how... quiet its introduction was. it was just suddenly this thing you saw places, there weren't any widespread articles or discussions about it like there were for gif and png back in the day, it was just kinda suddenly There
I don't like things that are just kinda suddenly There without explanation.
-F
@manifold it feels too much like all the random social conventions that were just suddenly There and we were expected to Know Them and Follow Them despite never being told about them
-F
@Felthry that does make sense! i think this partly stems from the fact that the primary usage has been aimed at web dev, and, like, it was developed by google
so there's a twofold niche. most people using the internet don't really neeeed to know about webp except when they save an image off a wiki and it turns out to be in a weird format, and we run in very anticapitalist circles that aren't likely to go "oh wow cool look at what's on the google developers blog!!"
@manifold i mean, the primary purposes of gif and png were web-oriented (gif being a format that works well on low-bandwidth connections, and png being "hey what if gif but *not* patent-encumbered, and maybe better in a couple ways too")
-F
@Felthry well, yes, but GIF was developed in 1987, and PNG in 1997. these technologies were created in an era where "using the internet" meant "making your own website" a LOT more than it does today