#i don't think it being a google invention is even an obstacle. Open source game engine godot has webp support.

[loveletterworm]

Ok this post was delayed because i was sitting next to my cat because she was lonely and then i fell asleep (peaceful world) but the thing about WebP. WebP is a COMPLETELY FINE FILE FORMAT, in fact, its compression leads to much smaller file sizes than PNGs, which means that pages using WebP images load MUCH faster on bad connections than they would if they used PNG files! This is a good thing! Objective good! (they are called "Web"ps because they are for the web!)

The issue with it is that somehow their adoption is extremely lopsided, so they're EVERYWHERE online, but it's disproportionately inaccessible to create or edit one without having to go through a bunch of file converters that will probably lead to data degradation if you have to keep going through them. So the real question is "Why is almost every program apparently so opposed to adding support/export options for a now extremely widespread image format that's existed since 2010????" Like you have had time? Why does trying to open a webp on my computer open Microsoft Edge instead of the photo viewer. What excuse could there possibly be for this.

#i don't think it being a google invention is even an obstacle. Open source game engine godot has webp support. #and there was that paint.net plugin that existed since 2011. #i think google would clearly want people to support their file format otherwise what was it for #but the only art program i know that apparently has webp support by default is photoshop #and i had to look up that it had that. nobody mentions it #mypost #also yes webps are a bit lossy but that's the point. #not every webpage needs Extreme Full Quality Nothing Lost PNGs #in fact i'd argue that most don't need them. #think of webps as like the middle point between jpgs and pngs #except leaning more to the png side and also they can be animated like gifs #theyre like a frankenstein...