Google Wants to Kill the JPEG: Meet WebP

Kier said:
Been there, done that. If another format were to overtake JPEG it would take at least ten years to do so, if only because Microsoft won't introduce support for a Google format until Internet Explorer 57.0, and they'll probably still be supporting IE6 at that point too.
Click to expand...
Hopefully by that time no one uses IE any longer :p.
 
Forsaken said:
This is a prime example of someone taking a quote, throwing on their crazy conspiracy hat, and running with a theory.

They are not saying they have control to do whatever they want with your information; they are saying if you do not want something known on the Internet, you should be much more aware of what you are doing, and what you release to the Internet. Look at all the recent issues involving privacy with Facebook, and many other places. Look at the increase in identity theft, and with how criminals are caught. Much of it is done through the Internet.

I won't say there probably won't be a point where Google abuses their information (They do sort of with their advertising, but thats expected by -every- advertising/search company), but they haven't really done so yet.
Click to expand...
No conspiracy theory, sorry. Thing is, you don't even need one.

I am very aware of people being stupid on the internet. However, it can also easily be linked to all the information they are gathering about you. Browsing websites, sending emails and so on aren't things you should have to wonder about whether you should be doing them or not. (except in cases of spam, and other bad things, but I'm aiming at "normal" usage)

Actually, they have done so yet. Gmail collected keywords from both incoming and outgoing emails and used them for advertising income. You can have your own opinion on the whole outgoing email thing, people who use Gmail potentially know this might be going on and could be okay with that. However, incoming emails are different, because the sender never said agreed to the Google terms. Therefor, those emails shouldn't be scanned nor used for income. Not sure how it's now, but this has actually happened.
 
Sador said:
No conspiracy theory, sorry. Thing is, you don't even need one.

I am very aware of people being stupid on the internet. However, it can also easily be linked to all the information they are gathering about you. Browsing websites, sending emails and so on aren't things you should have to wonder about whether you should be doing them or not. (except in cases of spam, and other bad things, but I'm aiming at "normal" usage)

Actually, they have done so yet. Gmail collected keywords from both incoming and outgoing emails and used them for advertising income. You can have your own opinion on the whole outgoing email thing, people who use Gmail potentially know this might be going on and could be okay with that. However, incoming emails are different, because the sender never said agreed to the Google terms. Therefor, those emails shouldn't be scanned nor used for income. Not sure how it's now, but this has actually happened.
Click to expand...

Almost -all- hosted email solutions do that, including Microsoft and Yahoo.

For your argument to be valid, you need a Google-specific issue, and not one where every company has potentially data mined.
 
Forsaken said:
Almost -all- hosted email solutions do that, including Microsoft and Yahoo.

For your argument to be valid, you need a Google-specific issue, and not one where every company has potentially data mined.
Click to expand...
It's not about the mining, it's about selling it. As far as I know, hotmail, yahoo and so on haven't been collecting information on the emails you send and receive, to sell that information for advertising purposes. If they do, blame's on me for not knowing.
 
Sador said:
It's not about the mining, it's about selling it. As far as I know, hotmail, yahoo and so on haven't been collecting information on the emails you send and receive, to sell that information for advertising purposes. If they do, blame's on me for not knowing.
Click to expand...
Search giants, who offer email services, and have advertising...

:rolleyes:.

Yahoo I know for sure did so, Microsoft not as sure about, as their main thing isn't the internet.
 
Forsaken said:
This is yet another conspiracy theory. If a company offers a better product, people will use that product instead of what they're currently using, which tends to be subpar.
Click to expand...

The product doesn't have to be better, it only has to be as good as and free. And it's hardly a "conspiracy" theory when it's happening openly and upfront: I'm not suggesting that there is a Google conspiracy to dominate the internet, I'm saying that Google dominates the internet and will take over even more territory as time goes by, per their own stated goals.

And I'm going to leave this conversation now, as it's getting a little too snarky.
 
anotheralias said:
The product doesn't have to be better, it only has to be as good as and free. And it's hardly a "conspiracy" theory when it's happening openly and upfront: I'm not suggesting that there is a Google conspiracy to dominate the internet, I'm saying that Google dominates the internet and will take over even more territory as time goes by, per their own stated goals.

And I'm going to leave this conversation now, as it's getting a little too snarky.
Click to expand...
I actually didn't mean it as snarky, just was reading comments on another site regarding this same thing, and people are spouting soooooo many things that are either implausible or taking things the wrong way, so I was already a little peeved at that :p. I am sorry if I came off the wrong way however.

They're capable of taking over more territory because they're providing better services and better products then the competition, and people are adopting them. Nothing is stopping people from -not- using them.

Its like choosing to use MS Paint over a free version of Adobe Photoshop, just because Adobe currently has the niche cornered.
 
Jethro said:
Yeap google do things out of the goodness of their hearts with no thought given to the bottom line. Am fairly sure they'll have their hand in someone's pocket end of day with this one.
Click to expand...
:) Looks to me like another one Conspiracy Theory. Of course, they will make money from it. At least they surely hope so. But our discussion started at the point where someone said, that Google is going to rule the world by this and another one said, that Google will start charging for it's uses. None is true to me.
 
Vladislav Rastrusny said:
:) Looks to me like another one Conspiracy Theory. Of course, they will make money from it. At least they surely hope so. But our discussion started at the point where someone said, that Google is going to rule the world by this and another one said, that Google will start charging for it's uses. None is true to me.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, when Google finally does grab world domination, I'm sure they'll treat the slaves who always believed in Googles very well.

;)
 
Sador said:
Well, it's all about taking small steps. If twenty years ago, governments would introduce everything they did today (related to privacy breaking stuff) people would have rioted. However, because it's a small step each time, like demanding you put your fingerprint on your ID card and save that information in a database.. people will mind it less.

Also, most people don't see why they should care. Google is pretty much doing the same thing. Just take small steps, and slowly...
Click to expand...
incrementalism
Anyway, a random quote from Google: If you're doing stuff you don't want people to know about, maybe you shouldn't be doing them in the first place?
Click to expand...
Circular logic , Ill refrain from mentioning where this already a real issue for some.

Sador said:
Don't worry, when Google finally does grab world domination, I'm sure they'll treat the slaves who always believed in Googles very well.

;)
Click to expand...
I literally laughed out loud at this...while we're still having fun here... I think they're making a movie about that, it's set in the future and I think it's called the "A Few Good Sheep" (totally bs, no im not spreading a rumor it's a joke.)
 
Laric said:
You know that is the way to get diseases right? And you would have to do your hair etc..;)
Click to expand...
that joke directly relates.. doing your hair to look good is a social standard that we as a society created over time...that's what it seems like Google is trying to do..set THE social standing... fine by me ...I'm not much for running with popular demand, but go head let them try to kill .png on me GRRRRR lol. It's not broken why are we fixing it? Thanks for that Laric it gives me an opinion :-)
 
Dragonfly said:
it truly worries me the amount of (especially) women I know who just assume that Facebook is some big safe warm and fuzzy fest put on for their entertainment, out of the sheer goodness of Facebook's heart... ugggh!

Wake up and smell the personal info harvesting people! You are not Facebooks customer, you are their product.. they sell "you" to their advertisers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a facebook account but I have mine primarily for my company. I just made the mistake when I first joined of making it a "personal" one. I have very little actual personal info there.


Kier said:
Been there, done that. If another format were to overtake JPEG it would take at least ten years to do so, if only because Microsoft won't introduce support for a Google format until Internet Explorer 57.0, and they'll probably still be supporting IE6 at that point too.
Click to expand...

Good point.

And yes, I agree, at the rate of adoption is typical, it will take 10-20 years minimum for that to happen. Not only browser support but operating system support...many people are still using XP because they do not want the hassle of upgrading.

And while upgrading graphic programs in some arenas is fairly popular, the free ones and IF you can afford it, Photoshop, upgrading in Paint Shop Pro is like the XP of Windows. We have a great many who refuse to go pass Version 7 (and we are now on Version X3.A , actually called Ultimate).

And on that subject there is one version of jpg that Google hasn't considered that is used by graphic artists, the JPEG2000. Photoshop users have to add a plugin to make this format work but those of use who use Paint Shop Pro can use it right away as long as we tell it it's a supported file format.
 
It sounds good, but so did Orkut, Googlesheets, Buzz, G video, G Notebook, etc.

Even Google has to deal with the hard fact that it is very difficult to repeat success. Although they have done it with G Maps, GMail and Android. (Youtube doesn't count, in fact they've ruined some parts of the layout imo).
 
Wow.

Google releases an open source format that could theoretically reduce 65% of the net content by 40% and people refuse to adopt primarily because they are going to "stick it to da man". Thats a 25% reduction in unnecessary data transmission. Thats 25% less bandwidth needed. Thats a lot faster loading times.

Thats funny.

As Kier mentioned it would take at least 10 years to be adopted enough to where you could realistically start to use it. Still, the refusal to encourage such significant efficiencies simply because of who developed it is crazy silly. Evaluate and adopt on its relative value for you and your users. Not because you think sticking to jpeg will thwart some evil conspiracy to dominate the world. That or put your money where your mouth is and block visitors coming from Google.
 
I'm confused. Does WebP have a new extension? All the examples that talk about WebP have the png extension.
 

Similar threads

rwm1962
  • Question Question
XF 1.4 Is it possible to kill the area with the site name?
Replies
2
Views
490
rwm1962
rwm1962
EliasAlucard
  • Question Question
ForumBioDiversity wants to make the switch to XenForo!
Replies
12
Views
4K
DRE
DRE
Back
Top Bottom