Google trying to promote adoption of WebP image format for websites

Google is pushing for more websites to adopt the WebP image format, even as the company rolls out support for the next generation image and photo standard across its own websites and services.

In a recent post on the Chromium blog, Google said that it replaced the PNG images in the Google Play online store in 2013 with versions in the WebP format. It said that caused a reduction of 35 percent in the standard image file size. At the moment, Google is in the middle of converting the thumbnails for its YouTube video service to WebP, which it claims cuts down site load times by 10 percent.

The blog adds:

All the rollouts within Google combined have raised our aggregate data transfer savings tally to tens of terabytes every day. For users, this translates into faster page load times and fewer bytes counted against metered data plans.

Google recently added support for animated WebP images and claims the format is the best successor to the older JPEG, PNG, and GIF file. However, Mozilla might beg to differ with Google on that matter. A few weeks ago, the company announced it is developing a new encoder that could reduce the file sizes of the most popular image format, JPEG, by at least 10 percent.

Source: Google | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to promote Xbox One's Kinect Sports Rivals with global tournament

Next Story

Microsoft issues security advisory and 'Fix-it' patch for Word exploit

80 Comments

View more comments

No, thank you. I have long needed transparency AND compression, but JPEG2000 is not supported by all major browsers. Going to indexed color PNG makes your website look like it came from 1996. The old formats are dead; long live the needed new standard, whatever we can agree it to be.

theyarecomingforyou said,
I really hope it does take off, as it's pretty sad that video codecs have evolved numerous times over the years but image codecs have stagnated.

I see this no different than MP3, there's other audio formats out there, the die hards only want FLAC for example, but it's the minority. For most people mp3, even though it's not the best option, is what they want and is good enough, so it's still around and kicking. JPEG and PNG and so on are no different, images are less of a issue for people than audio and video, as long as their pictures look good they don't care if it's JPEG or not.

Besides, PNG can give you good quality with a smaller size, if file size is the issue here.

Google isnt forcing everyone to use their new format, just changing their sites. Whether or not this takes off, who knows. But this is how standards are created. Not all get adapted but if no one was proposing/creating new standards...then nothing will move forward.

Another day in the tech world.

techbeck said,
Google isnt forcing everyone to use their new format, just changing their sites. Whether or not this takes off, who knows. But this is how standards are created. Not all get adapted but if no one was proposing/creating new standards...then nothing will move forward.

No, this is not how standards are created.
http://www.w3.org/standards/

I think the difficulty in adoption of WebP is probably not related to the technical details- anybody can agree that reduced loading times and file sizes is better 100% of the time. It's the name. People can easily say "JPEG" and "PNG" ("GIF" arguments still get rather heated), but "WebP"? It doesn't sound cool or roll off the tongue, and so that's why the layman will have a hard time liking WebP.

Mozilla doesn't want to add webp support as it is based on vp8 which is a poor codec. Mozilla is creating the Daala video codec which will beat vp9 and h265. Mozilla almost certainly wants an image codec based on that.

torrentthief said,
Mozilla doesn't want to add webp support as it is based on vp8 which is a poor codec. Mozilla is creating the Daala video codec which will beat vp9 and h265. Mozilla almost certainly wants an image codec based on that.

With the likes of Facebook, Netflix and Wikipedia requesting WebP support for Mozilla's browser, they'll most likely eventually bend over and add it.

http://mobilitydigest.com/netflix-to-mozilla-give-us-webp/

ichi said,

With the likes of Facebook, Netflix and Wikipedia requesting WebP support for Mozilla's browser, they'll most likely eventually bend over and add it.

http://mobilitydigest.com/netflix-to-mozilla-give-us-webp/

facebook disabled webp i believe as users found out they couldn't edit and share their photos with other people as their browsers couldn't support webp. Mozilla said just days ago on bugzilla that they won't be supporting it.

torrentthief said,

facebook disabled webp i believe as users found out they couldn't edit and share their photos with other people as their browsers couldn't support webp. Mozilla said just days ago on bugzilla that they won't be supporting it.

So maybe that'd be the reason why they were asking Mozilla to support it?

Mozilla also said that they weren't implementing support for h264, see how far that went.

I work on the web and in apps. It's disheartening to see so much hate for WebP in these comments. While I am as averse to big standards changes as anyone, JPEG, PNG, and GIF are old enough now to strangle creativity. WebP is a proven solution to the challenges the old formats face, and the sooner the other browser vendors can support it the better off we'll be as content creators.

Benjamin Ritter said,
I work on the web and in apps. It's disheartening to see so much hate for WebP in these comments. While I am as averse to big standards changes as anyone, JPEG, PNG, and GIF are old enough now to strangle creativity. WebP is a proven solution to the challenges the old formats face, and the sooner the other browser vendors can support it the better off we'll be as content creators.

It could be great, as soon as Google LETS GO of the format and turns it over to ANY 3rd party standards body that will keep Google from making future changes for their own benefit.

Mobius Enigma said,

It could be great, as soon as Google LETS GO of the format and turns it over to ANY 3rd party standards body that will keep Google from making future changes for their own benefit.

+1 We do not need a new IE6 situation.

Great, if they are serious about VP8 or WebP, then Google needs to turn it over to a 3rd party standards body.

If they are not willing to do this, then quit wasting our time.

Have they stated they were not going to? And yes, that is a question.

Maybe they are seeing if it takes off before they turn it over. But agreed, they need to.

techbeck said,
Have they stated they were not going to? And yes, that is a question.

Maybe they are seeing if it takes off before they turn it over. But agreed, they need to.

Why would they need to wait? They can turn it over now and continue to contribute to it.

They have had VP8 for several years now, what are they waiting for?

Either they want to abide by and work with standards or they don't. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Mobius Enigma said,
Great, if they are serious about VP8 or WebP, then Google needs to turn it over to a 3rd party standards body.

If they are not willing to do this, then quit wasting our time.

It's been submited to the IETF (rfc6386) and the ISO SC29/WG11.
Nokia came in with a "hur dur wait no".
Nokia's infringenment claims have been dropped in Germany, so far. Not sure how that affects Nokia's attempt to block VP8's standardization.

35% reduction in image size? Talk about a pimp on an elephant's ass. Hey, Google, how about reducing your spam ads by even 10%?

Commenting is disabled on this article.