upvote
What issue do people have with webp?
reply
Still can't upload it to every site that takes images, my file browser doesn't preview them nicely for whatever reason, that kind of stuff.
reply
The support for WEBP images across the industry is like 100x better than AVIF or JXL.
reply
I wonder how much lack of support is due to the name that seems to self-imply that it's only for the web.

Seems like terrible branding if it wants to be taken seriously as a standard.

reply
Presumably the same problems exist for avif/jxl?
reply
It's frankly pointless. Pretty much nothing produces them natively, so it's usually a generation loss from JPEG, not enough compression gains without annoyingly visible loss of quality, still has format many format and functional limits so it solved nobody's problem at any time, pretty much.

And much (though not all) of its improved compression (before it damages the image too badly) was anyway matched by the better JPEG encoders which were released and improved over time. It sure benched very well against a 30+ year old JPEG encoder implementation though.

JXL has a pixel-accurate JPEG-input mode with no generation loss which already beats WebP, a native mode which is way way better even, it addresses many more use cases and is not Google's pet project (saying this while thanking them for all the foundational work from which modern image/video codecs benefit - JXL itself first and foremost!) so it DOES have better than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the defacto standard of the next 10-30 years and we'll soon see it in silicon.

reply
Poor support in some instances. Apple lagged for a long time for iPhone support. Discord mobile still does not support animated webp's.
reply
(I work for discord)

Discord Mobile absolutely supports animated WebP (in fact I just tried uploading one to make sure I wasn't hallucinating here).

reply
Well while you're here, there definitely are some issues with animated image support. Just earlier this week I attempted to use an animated .avif as my avatar image. It uploaded fine, the preview showed it fine, but the actual applied image was static again. Not sure if there's some issues with in the pipeline to handle those.
reply
Surely support is even worse for both .jxl and .avif? If the annoying thing about .webp was lack of support, I don't think .jxl nor .avif solve any of that - just the opposite.
reply
One thing to note is that even when WebP did eventually get support in many places, it often look a very long time because there just wasn’t that much motive or interest to support it. So for years it was the weird format you’d accidentally download from the web and have little luck getting to work off-line.

The non-exhaustive table linked below shows how long it took for different programs to support different image formats since their introduction. Outside of Chrome, Chrome in disguise, and whatever has become of Firefox, adoption of JPEG XL has been far more enthusiastic than it ever has for WebP—or AVIF, for that matter. So we are very unlikely to have a long period when JPEG XL only works on the web and nowhere else.

https://cloudinary.com/blog/2026-the-year-of-jpeg-xl#_strong...

reply
Right, due to slim support outside of browsers, webp files kinda turned into lumps of coal when downloaded, going from the image you wanted to a chunk of data that nothing but the browser knew what to do with. It was like the file format version of those fake-transparent PNGs with checkerboard background.
reply
> even at the time of writing, inserting a WebP in a Google Docs results in “unsupported image type.”

This is pretty wild. Google can't align their own tools for it?

reply
webp = VP8 image

Nothing wrong with that per se, it's just old and limited, especially compared to avif/AV1 which would be like a theoretical VP10 at this point.

reply
Poor support makes it feel like a form of DRM.
reply