What other browsers beside firefox don't support Webp? I want to make a list of browsers to avoid

What other browsers beside firefox don't support Webp? I want to make a list of browsers to avoid.

Other urls found in this thread:

developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery
flif.info/lossy.html
developers.google.com/speed/webp/faq#which_web_browsers_natively_support_webp
bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=792580
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Edge aka enternet explorer, kinda unsurprising to be honest. IE is the browser that has been, is, and will be shit for all eternity.

Probably anything that is even slightly related to apple.

this

>GNU/Linux
Has SJW contributors regardless of distro
>Windows
SJW contributors
>OSX
SJW contributors
>Your ISP
SJW employees
Firefox being SJW is irrelevant. When did you grow out of the Sup Forums meme Sup Forums? I know i never fell for it!

The ideal PSNR is 43, is there one for SSIM too?

...

that image should have been firecux

All companies have people which you disagree.
Refusing yourself a product because of the mentality of someone rather than the quality is retarded.

...

Hello r3ddit firecuck user.

It seem like of weird that they haven't implemented support for WebP. As far as I can tell, MozJEPG seems to be eating up a lot of the effort that would have otherwise gone into WebP support.

Go away.

Sure. Reply with a fucking meme. That is all your shit board can do.

If you want to avoid SJW shit so much then leave the internet because the internet is SJW domain. There is no escape. Make a solid argument in your next reply instead of posting "xD"

You fucking won't.
There is no point in trying to avoid an SJW browser when you use an SJW OS and use SJW services.

>the fucking state of Amerifat tech companies

>Breitbart

How much is mozilla paying you?

Eh, GNU/Linux has many SJW contributors in many nations, so it's not just an American thing.
Fuck off to 8gag with your video game bullshit. Who gives a fuck about the founder, as long as good forks can be made i'm happy.

I don't get the reasoning. If you support webm, shouldn't webp support be natural? Is there some legal crap surrounding it?

>Breitbart

>the internet is SJW domain
Well, Tumblr and Reddit is, maybe you should fuck off back there

friendly fire

Americuckistan is the SJW capital of the world though

Holy fucking shit. Mozilla is not paying me. I'm posting from clover from the comfort of my couch. Do you honestly think mozilla pays people to shill on fucking Sup Forums of all places? Give me proof of anyone shilling on Sup Forums and i will leave this board forever.

You cannot because you are an alt-right conservashit who is hyper paranoid about "muh jews" and "muh shill$ xddd".

I expected this from you. Yet another argumentless post.

SJWs lurk 4chins all the time. I do not use tumblr but i do admit to creating a reddit account a few days ago. Have to admit not being accused of a shill every 35 seconds is pretty awesome.

You can't be serious.

The state of American corporations is obviously fucked, but blaming a few loud idiots on the internet for that would be silly.

I think it's just a lack of development time. Mozilla seems to have trouble sorting out their priorities these days. They've got a bunch of really neat ideas they're working on (Rust, MozJEPG, etc) but they don't seem to have enough hands or money to actually do all of the things they're doing at once.

>Americuckistan is the SJW capital of the world though
Not in any meaningful sense, no.

Every browser that doesn't use Blink.

Mozilla is a nonprofit funded on donations you moron

It's also now infested with SJWs and fat feminists. It must be left to die and rot in the gutter for everyone's safety.

Firecock is now officially a legitimate botnet.

You do realize this can all be disabled in about:config unlike chrome?
Not to mention all the sane forks such as IceCat don't do this.

Those can be disabled on Chrome through AppData.

>2016
>Giving a fuck about SJWs
>Not living your life out in a third world country with a boat load of money as a king

OK, but why bother with mozjpeg when webp exists? Why the push to reinvent a wheel that sitting there perfectly good to go?

The problem is that in the past Firefox was essentially the only alternative to Internet Explorer and it was enough for them to be just that

But then mobile Safari and mobile in general happened, and then Chrome also happened and at that point it just wasn't enough anymore

Why bother with webp when jpeg and png both already exist? Why the push to reinvent a wheel that sitting there perfectly good to go?

At least put some effort in.

>why bother with mozjpeg when webp exists? Why the push to reinvent a wheel that sitting there perfectly good to go?
I think your analogy might be backwards there.
MozJEPG is "using what's already there".
WebP is "re-inventing the wheel".

>But then mobile Safari and mobile in general happened, and then Chrome also happened and at that point it just wasn't enough anymore
Yeah, Moz really hasn't done well with the rise of mobile shit.
Firefox for Android is actually pretty nice (in my opinion), but not-one actually seems to use it.

>WebP initial release: 30September 2010
>Mozjpeg initial release: March4, 2014
hmmmmmmm

>no one uses it
>100 million downloads
>more downloads than Opera Minj which is the most popular browser in Africa

Do you know what mozjpeg actually is? Because I don't think you do.

A shitty libjpg-turbo fork encoder that takes eons to finish encoding jpgs and still looks like shit compared to Webp in the end. Yes I know what that garbage is.

Mozjpeg only needs to be adopted by applications that encode jpeg. You don't need to change anything with the browser to get its benefits.

firefox for android would be good if it wasn't so fucking slow

Too bad it's DOA. Christ, why is everything that comes from cuckzilla a piece of shit? see

>Choosing browsers based on WebP VP8, inferior lossy image format

KYS, FAGGOT OP

FFandroid isn't that great actually. It lacks the breadth of plugins and control the desktop ver has, while being fairly awkward to use. Honestly I find Opera much more usable. I still use FF, since ublockorgin does a far better job than Opera, but everything else tends to flow better on opera, tabs, requesting desktop site version, browsing them. It's also feels faster.

Did you just compare an encoder to a format?

I was surprised at that too, but it basically never shows up in any browser market comparison.

>Yes I know what that garbage is.
Okay, so what's the issue?
Apparently, tests show that MozJEPG's JEPGs can come pretty close to current WebP images. Maybe not as good, but not far off. Given that JEPG decoders are already ubiquitous, there's at least a understandable argument for why Moz might be pushing MozJPEG over WebP support.
Hell, I don't even agree with them; I'm just saying I don't think it's a dumb idea.

>Too bad it's DOA
What makes you say that?

developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery

webp has a lossless format as well.

>Did you just compare an encoder to a format?
Both are encoders you knobsocket. mozjpeg is just a hacked libjpeg-turbo encoder that sucks ass.

>What makes you say that?
Webp has
>lossy encoding
>true lossless encoding
>support for transparency in even with lossy encoding
>animation support
>saves ~50% over typical JPGs
>saves ~25-50% over typical PNGs
>smaller than mozjpeg JPGs
There's literally no reason to adopt mozjpeg except wasting hours trying to make a jpg smaller when the webp encoder makes an image smaller than that in like 1 second.

FLIF is even better. Literally the end all of image codecs

FLIF is a lossless image encoder, still in alpha development, has no support for animations, has no support for lossy encoding, and even worse has virtually 0 support on web browsers. FLIF is DOA.

Is including webp decoder such a grueling task? Especially with webm support already there? I mean, ff could have shipped with webp support years ago, but instead they refuse and keep chugging away at mozjpeg. By now I'm sure it'd be universally adopted by all browsers had that happened. Remember when webm appeared on Sup Forums? every website I visited was buzzing about it, and lots of places adopted it or tried to imitate it (gifv or whatever). That could have been webp instead.

>has no support for animations, has no support for lossy encoding

not true. It's already have lossy encoding. flif.info/lossy.html

Not him, but it sounds like you think something even more obscure than ogg vorbis even has a chance of superseding mp3. Hate to break it to you, but it's most likely webp that's going to go where aac stands.

I'm not using a Blink based browser, webp works though

developers.google.com/speed/webp/faq#which_web_browsers_natively_support_webp
Excluding Chromium-based browsers, PaleMoon seems to be the only other browser to support it.

>effort that would have otherwise gone into WebP support.
Someone actually submitted to them a patch to implement WebP, and they rejected it. 80% of it was just using the VP8 decoder that's already in the code base for WebP, and applying it to work for WebP images too.

It's taken so long because Mozilla wants to push for their own JPEG project, and feels like Google is just trying to gobble everything up.

>the Chrome meme replaced with FireFox
>FireFox is literally becoming Chrome 2.0
Priceless.

>Is including webp decoder such a grueling task?
See above. Someone already wrote a draft for FireFox, and they rejected the proposal.
WebP decoders are just VP8 decoders (plus VP8L for lossless), so anything that plays WebM should be able to display WebP with less effort.

did you know that firefox sends your ip to the websites you visit?

Having SJW contributors isn't an issue. It only becomes an issue when they start getting pandered to on a major scale, especially to the point where it starts hurting the core product, such as is the case with Firefox.

-pre 4 isn't really fixing wrong colors after RGB->YUV conversion, what else can I do?

webp is dead from the start.

did you know that every browsers do that?

This.

all of them, only chrome and chrome based browser support webp

...

PaleMoon supports WebP

Anyone who uses that furfag browser deserves a kick in the balls.

>nobody wants to support a dead-on-arrival image format
what a surprise

Does anyone have a patch set available to remove Hello and the other crap from Firefox?

Too bad there are no good free alternative to use
>Inb4 chromium
I will never trust anything made by kikeggle.

Reasons to distrust Chromium:
bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=792580

I'm aware of that. Maybe brave or vivaldi might become good enough to switch this or next year.

ITT:

>DAE SJWSSSS XDDDD

What do you have against giving your information to our overlords?

Wait wait

Firefox is also botnet now???

which browser can I use then?

None. They're all shit.

No...
this can't be...

Use IceCat.
Half the shit on that list is fake. Ignore Sup Forums retards and you'll be fine. Don't believe me? Use mozillazine.

>Chrome/Chromium
Google botnet

>Firefox
Slow and bloated

>Internet Explorer
Internet Explorer also dead

>Edge
Proprietary and windows 10 only

>Safari
>Shit, OS X only, and can't even run webm.

>Opera
Obsolete

Face it, there is no good browser anymore. Maybe a new one will come to save us all, but I doubt it.

Palemoon, Otter, NetSurf, Lynx.

THEN WHY THE FUCK IS EBAY AND FACEBOOK ALREADY USING IT, YOU STUPID FUCK?

...

Fuck off, you used a lossy PNG. Don't think we didn't notice.

0 . 4 %
.
4
%
Dead on Arrival
WebP Fags BTFO
CHROME FAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH!

>Lossy PNG
>smaller filesizes than a Lossless format

Who would have thought?

Check out GNU IceCat.

The amusing part is the lossless 24-bit RGBA Webp was still smaller albeit by a very small amount.

I wanted a good replacement for firefox but I have used Chrome and Opera both for ages and they are somehow slower now, along with that stupid smooth scroll (the one on firefox is much better, simple as that)

Firefox gives me some sound crackling here and there with youtube videos and apparently Nightly fixes that, however it just randomly turns every tab into a black screen and I have to restart the browser.

What is
>brave
>palemoon
>opera

>that has been
IE wasnt the first browser, but it became the undisputed best, and it wiped every other browser off the table. But when it gained market dominance it stopped evolving.

Are you implying it was ever "good"? None of the versions of IE was ever good, none. Even the first version of firecock and chrome was better than the latest turd microshaft shat out as internet explorer. Albeit I do hate to admit that internet explorer did offer more functionality than netscape navigator. But that was eons ago.

shit
firefox with a different name
closed source chromium based chink botnet

>lossy PNG
Wut?
>lossless WebP
Converted from a "lossy" PNG? Oh, I am laughing.
>still smaller
0.4%
Zero Dot Four Percent
Dot
Four
Percent

>palemoon
furfag garbage

>Otter
>NetSurf
literally who tier

>Lynx
you've got to be kidding me

>xD it's furry so it's bad LMFAO

go back to Sup Forums. you lack the intelligence required to post on technology discussion boards.

Even if it wasn't a furfag browser, it's outdated and is far behind in HTML5 support.

It's a shit browser you stupid butthurt furfag.

>>lossy PNG
>Wut?
A lossy PNG is one with color banding and grain applied to reduce the file size, the original image is destroyed.

>>lossless WebP
>Converted from a "lossy" PNG? Oh, I am laughing.
The point was to show that despite using a lossy PNG, Webp is still smaller.

>>still smaller
>0.4%
>Zero Dot Four Percent
>Dot
>Four
>Percent
Yes over a lossy, botched, PNG full of color banding and grain. That's a 24-bit RGBA Webp btw. Typical filesize reductio over typical non-lossy PNG photos found on the web is still 25-50%.

...

The reason why Mozilla is deliberately avoiding including webp support right now is that every additional codec they add support for is another doorway to security issues. Adding support is easy but removing it after it's been established is quite a bit a harder. Mozilla is just being cautious.

Webm was supported quick because it has actual advantages. Webp just has advantages compared to existing implementations of jpeg. Mozjpeg brings many of those advantages over to jpeg and reduces the need for a fancy new codec with an additional couple thousand lines of code that need to be audited

>trying this hard
Mr Patel, two rupees have been deposited on your Google Wallet. Add our G+ page to your circles so we can continue to share our offers with you.

>The reason why Mozilla is deliberately avoiding including webp support right now is that every additional codec they add support for is another doorway to security issues. Adding support is easy but removing it after it's been established is quite a bit a harder. Mozilla is just being cautious.
No they are doing it because the SJWs and fat feminists want to feel like special snowflakes with that mozjpeg abomination. Webp has been developed since 2010 and has been open source this whole time. If anything mozjpeg is a huge security threat since it has only been in development for about 2 years.

>Webp just has advantages compared to existing implementations of jpeg.
It also has advantages over PNGs and GIFs
>inb4 lossy PNGfag spergs out

>Mozjpeg brings many of those advantages over to jpeg and reduces the need for a fancy new codec with an additional couple thousand lines of code that need to be audited
In the end mozjpeg is a joke. It takes way longer to encode than a typical JPG and a Webp image with a shorter encoding time is still smaller.

C'mon m8 mozjpeg is DOA and you know it. WebP already won, it's already being used in popular websites like Facebook and ebay. There is no image format war, just Webp shitting on mozjpeg's corpse.

>every png found publicly available online is either an optimized one or lossy
HAHAHAHA, no
>0 . 4 %
>.
>4
>%