Calling it "Google Pik" implies that it's an official Google project, but the page explicitly says it is not. The post title should be changed to remove Google to avoid confusion.
Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
61–70 of 151 posts
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#62We're seeing a lot of different formats lately. So to make this more generic, I'm thinking we should move to an encoding-independent format. That is, the file contains an encoding-id, and the decoder can be downloaded from a standard location (a website run by a standards organization) using the encoding-id as a reference. Of course, this can be cached. The decoder can be in different formats, e.g. bytecode, WASM, i3…
The file does contain an encoding-id - it's the last three or so characters in the filename (alternatively, the first four bytes in the file data).
Yes, but the amount of encodings is pretty limited. It's better (imho) to make the encodings free of any viewer or browser. That way, we can more easily handle a large variety of encodings, and different versions of encodings. Anyone could make a new encoder, and create files using them.
You can see it as a "democratization" of encodings.
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#63> New lossy image format gives 55 % less bytes than jpeg with the same butteraugli score. It's the most serious attempt to date to make an open source replacement for JPEG which misses a lot of advances in data/image compression. I hope it stops the spreading of HEIF plagued by patents.
Uh, WebP?
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could Google own something written and supported in the authors' free time?
If you work at Google everything you make, even in your spare time, belongs to them. That's how the contracts work, unfortunately.
This is not enforceable and probably illegal in Germany. As it should be.
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could Google own something written and supported in the authors' free time?
It's worth noting that depending on your location this is actually _the default_. As in, if it isn't in your contract, your side projects belong to your employer.
Yeah I was very surprised to read this in my current contract (first employer, the Netherlands). It basically says: "as is the default, we own products/code/whatever that is relevant to our business, even if you made it in spare time, but we make the exemption that contributions to pre-existing open source projects can be under an open license, because we are so benevolent and don't want to discourage this".
I asked about it, but without raising a formal complaint, I didn't get more than the general logic, which is "because you also learn from experiences on the job, it's unfair if you can can put stuff together and then sell it or even give it away for free to potential competitors".
I'm still considering whether or not to make a big deal out of it in future contracts; but next month I'm going to do a master's anyway, so it was a temporary limitation (and I accepted with that in mind).
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#66Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#67Does Google recognize it and show it on image results?
"This project is in the initial research stage, please don't use it for any purpose."
I am guessing no
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could Google own something written and supported in the authors' free time?
If you work at Google everything you make, even in your spare time, belongs to them. That's how the contracts work, unfortunately.
> If you work at Google __everything you make__, even in your spare time, belongs to them.
Okay, google makes software and if you make software on your spare time maybe it's reasonable that company does not want to leak IP and thus produces these contracts.
But what about these stupid examples:
- Building a backyard deck for your house - Taking pictures as a hobby - Doing woodworking (e.g. making a chair and a table for your home office) - etc..
So with this contract, Goggle owns my deck, desk, chair and a picture of these items, because I produced them on my spare time? Will horde of lawyers will come to my house and take my deck, desk, chair and picture of those items, because I used them while working remotely and bought tools to build them with the salary they payed me?
Even if those examples are completely rubbish and won't stand in court for Google, it's still absurd idea. You get payed salary for your time and work - that's it! That's where Google's power ends. After hours you go home and it's bullshit that they can own your personal work done on your own freetime at your private property with private tools and your own ideas. If they want to own everything then they should pay hourly average times 24hours , times 365 days per year as a salary, because I am giving all my time and work for them, while I am in contract with them.
EDIT: quote from Google's Personal Projects (IARC) [1]:
> Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google.
Well that's just messed up.
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#69Unfortunate name if you happen to know Dutch.
For what it's worth, my girlfriend and I laugh out loud whenever we drive past the Fagotstreet nearby.
Most names are poorly chosen by this standard, given the diversity of existing languages.
Re: Pik – a new lossy image format for the internet
#70The title of this post is misleading. It's not an official Google product and is not called Google Pik. This is just a project named "Pik" that happens to be developed by Google employee(s).