←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
672 points bluedel | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.479s | source
Show context
poisonborz ◴[] No.44375523[source]
Not backwards compatible. We just add it to that nice cupboard "great advanced image formats we will forget about".

Society doesn't need a new image format. I'd wager to say not any new multimedia format. Big corporate entites do, and have churning them out at a steady pace.

Look at poor webp - a format pushed by the largest industry players - and the abysmal everyday use it gets, and the hate it generates.

replies(10): >>44375537 #>>44375557 #>>44375998 #>>44376442 #>>44376512 #>>44376957 #>>44376999 #>>44377083 #>>44377151 #>>44380128 #
michaelmior ◴[] No.44375537[source]
> and the abysmal everyday use it gets

Estimates are that 95% of Internet users have a browser that supports WebP and that ~25% of the top million websites serve WebP images. I wouldn't call that abysmal.

replies(5): >>44375570 #>>44375590 #>>44375752 #>>44376063 #>>44376879 #
dotancohen ◴[] No.44375590[source]
5% of people can't view them, yet 25% of top websites use them?

In what other industry would it be considered acceptable to exclude 5% of visitors/users/clients?

replies(6): >>44375629 #>>44375653 #>>44375669 #>>44375691 #>>44375850 #>>44376255 #
pchangr ◴[] No.44375850[source]
I can tell you, I have personally worked with a global corporation and we estimated that for one of their websites, supporting the 3% that we exclude by using “modern standards” would be more costly than the amount of revenue they get from them. So in that case, it was a rational decision. And up to the 10% cut, management just didn’t want to do the extra investment. So if something falls below that 10% threshold, they just don’t care to get it fixed.
replies(4): >>44376713 #>>44379367 #>>44383905 #>>44386112 #
eviks ◴[] No.44379367[source]
Something is off in this calculation, how did they get to such a high cost for such a simple thing as an alternative image format when the web supports multiple???
replies(2): >>44380115 #>>44399295 #
1. pchangr ◴[] No.44399295[source]
No, this was not about the alternative image format. This was about the browsers and screen resolutions that we choose to fully support. We took the data directly from the website visitors analytics. Basically .. resolutions under 1024px and anything older than edge 11 was left out of the scope.