Too limited in scope

[Joshua]

If you're going to promote YAWF (yet another web format) it needs to
be significantly better or simpler than what preceded it. WebP seems
to only approach a single existing format - JPEG - and offers modest
improvements relative to the difficulty of establishing a new format.
If Google really wants to make WebP worth overcoming the significant
installed base of browsers and other platforms, it should also fold in
the abilities of PNG and MNG - namely transparency (planned), lossless
compression, and animation. The market is fragmented - JPG for maximum
compression, GIF for animation, and PNG for image fidelity and
transparency. WebP would probably be the best place to unify such
requirements into a modern image format.

If you're just going to compete with JPEG (with standard encoders and
decoders in every OS, program, and just about device known to man)
directly with nothing other than a modest compression improvement, to
say you're fighting an uphill battle is putting it mildly.

[antimatter15]

PNG is already really good at compressed images, and there's no real
need to create another lossless format when PNG is great. WebP is just
single-frame WebM, so adding animation would be needless and
redundant. Since alpha channels are planned, I don't see what WebP is
really missing.

[Mark Adams]

GIF is a standard from 1987. Since WebM is used for video it doesn't
seem like it would be hard to incorporate animation/motion into WebP
and replace GIF. That would truly make it indispensable for browser
makers.

[Gaz Davidson]

On Sep 30, 10:35 pm, antimatter15 <antimatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since alpha channels are planned, I don't see what WebP is
> really missing.

HDR formats, stereoscopic images, indexed sprites and image pyramids
(mipmaps), for a start.