Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

mobilerank.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#51

Post by ksec »

izacus wrote: post #17
recursive wrote: post #2

At this point, I don't think it's too fringey a conspiracy theory that Apple is opposed to the advancement of web technology, while trying to plausibly appear to be in favor of it. Their motive would be obvious. Keep the native app experience superior.

They're also financially benefiting by pushing competing HEIC and HEVC formats since they're patent owners and collect royalties for big scale implementations. In light of that, it's not surprising they refuse to support royalty free formats.

Apple would paid more for HEVC royalty than they receive, or a break even. I doubt royalty payment is an incentive of any kind to Apple. But much rather patent protection.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#52

Post by Jyaif »

tbolt wrote: post #22

Could this be related to non-network performance? The WebKit team seems very conservative in adding features to preserve/balance CPU usage and Battery Consumption. Which I generally applaud them for.

In general it's far better to reduce network usage in exchange for more CPU processing, not to mention that with faster websites you save on screen time as well.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#53

Post by ksec »

tarkin2 wrote: post #38
gardaani wrote: post #9

I'm happy that Apple hasn't adopted WebP. JPEG XL and AVIF are better formats. Even Google is considering creating WebP2. WebP is already an outdated format (no HDR support), which should just die.

Disagree. There's various web standards that export to webp: web recording, video conferencing etc. [1] Apple have effectively veto'd a web standard, pushing developers and users into their ecosystem yet again. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MediaRecord...

>web recording, video conferencing

Why cant those be done on H.264?

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#54

Post by kyriakos »

aeonflux wrote: post #39

Could anyone one please tell me what is the purpose of the Web Notifications, other than invasive marketing.

Here's a nice use case: I wouldn't mind getting a notification whenever someone responds to my comments on HN.

I also run Microsoft Teams in the browser, getting notifications for messages is quite useful.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#55

Post by CharlesW »

As an experiment I grabbed all the images from v/home/f/images/iphone-takeover.

Originals: 584 KB for 18 files. After running them through ImageOptim: 353 KB.

So, I made the images ~40% smaller on average just by running everything through a JPEG optimizer.

When you compare that to the ~50% average reduction the author saw for two of the images, it makes WebP seem even less interesting.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#56

Post by jccalhoun »

jws wrote: post #19

That is to save 146KB on one image an 99KB on another, to save 2 seconds you'd have to using a 1mbps connection. The first random internet article I pulled for real world cellular speeds suggests even unwired, people are getting 30mbps so that changes the article to: Apple could load 66ms faster by adopting WebP … but these are cached resources, so maybe… Apple could perform the initial load 66ms faster by adopting W…

i just checked and according to speedtest.net, here in Indiana, I have 12. 29mbps down.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#57

Post by toast0 »

jws wrote: post #19

That is to save 146KB on one image an 99KB on another, to save 2 seconds you'd have to using a 1mbps connection. The first random internet article I pulled for real world cellular speeds suggests even unwired, people are getting 30mbps so that changes the article to: Apple could load 66ms faster by adopting WebP … but these are cached resources, so maybe… Apple could perform the initial load 66ms faster by adopting W…

The speed of small transfers is going to be dominated by congestion window limiting, not bandwidth. So round trip time matters more than bandwidth.

All that said, Apple primarily cares about existing Apple users at this point, why would they optimize images for non-Apple users? They're much more likely to push HEIC if they care --- which for 250kB of images in the modern web, I kind of don't think they would.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#58

Post by tarkin2 »

ksec wrote: post #53
tarkin2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. There's various web standards that export to webp: web recording, video conferencing etc. [1] Apple have effectively veto'd a web standard, pushing developers and users into their ecosystem yet again. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MediaRecord...

>web recording, video conferencing Why cant those be done on H.264?

Whether they can or can’t is besides the question.

They’re not in the standard.

And Apple have thereby again damaged an open standard’s wider-scale adoption.

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#59

Post by xenonite »

This is only one half of the story. Given the increased network bandwidth, decoding speed matters. And here, JPEG is much faster. Also note that the JPEG decompression algorithms are highly optimized and coded in assembly language, and there are maybe even hardware decoders.

On android:

WebP 66% less file size than JPG, 267% more time to decode.

WebP 38% less file size than JPG, 258% more time to decode.

WebP 89% less file size than JPG, 319% more time to decode.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37812950/jpg-vs-webp-per...

Re: The irony of Apple homepage and Safari WebP support

#60

Post by ksec »

Apple doesn't even support their own HEIF on Safari. Why would one expect them to support WebP? Not to mention the gain on WebP is actually relatively small. JPEG, despite its age is still getting encoder improvement.

You would have expected or assumed nearly 30 years since the introduction of JPEG, we could compress an image at 0.5 bpp ( bit per pixel ) that has higher quality than the best JPEG with 1.0 bpp.

It turns out that is still not the case, Not with WebP, AVIF is closer but still not there. Just like in Audio, Despite all the marketing claims about mp3pro, HE-AAC... etc having mp3 128kbps quality at half the bitrate. It took us nearly 30 years to get an Audio Codec that sounds better than the best mp3 encoder at lower than 128Kbps bitrate. And that was Opus at 96Kbps. ( At this point no body cares about those bitrate savings any more )

That is not to say image compression aren't improving. [1] Is an 4K image compressed by the next generation VVC Reference Encoder at 350KB.

[1] https://imgsli.com/MTI1NDA

Post reply on HN