this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
93 points (87.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

38657 readers
270 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Webp is pretty great actually. Supporting a 32bit alpha channel means I've actually managed to reduce file sizes of what were formerly PNGs by something like 80%, which drastically improved performance (and the size of my project). I don't get where the complaint of image quality came from either, as it seems to perform better than JPEG at the same file size.

The worst part is that you missed the real problem with the format: the CPU overhead (and therefore the energy cost) of handling the file. A high-traffic site can dramatically increase the energy required for the images processed by the thousands/millions of clients in a single day, which places a drain on the grid and emits more CO₂ (yes, this is really a thing that people measure now).

Basically Google invented the format to externalise their costs. Now, rather than footing the bill for bigger datacentres and greater bandwidth, they made everyone else pay for decompression.

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

There are situations where the compression can benefit end users as well, such as loading less image data on a capped cellular plan. Transmission of data is not necessarily free for the recipient, either.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'd prefer any other format on the sole basis of "not maintained by ".

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

consider: the website doesn't care how much energy the users use

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's exactly the reasoning Google has followed with its development and promotion of webp. Unfortunately, whether the website cares or not, CO₂ emissions are markedly higher due to increased client energy consumption, and that does directly affect you, so it's worth considering the implications of using webp in a popular site.

the data cost (fuck rural ISPs, but not enough for me to get musklink) is higher to me than the energy cost