• shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You get the exact same quality at around ~25% smaller than other image formats. Unfortunate that it’s not supported by everything, but yeah it’s a better image format practically in that sense.

    On the web this saves money when storing at a large scale, and it can have a significant impact on page speed when loading websites on slower connections.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My problem is the way it’s packaged as a link to a website that hosts the jpeg image. Saving, modifying, and using the image file becomes impossible in some workflows. Imagine a future where you get fined for stealing memes. I bet they could make the image file size even smaller without all of that bullshit added in, until then I’m just using an extension to convert to png (which results in loss btw).

    • NBJack@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather see the savings in the army of Javascript I apparently need today for the ‘modern’ web experience. Image files have gotten lots of love, but hey, here’s a shitty 27 year old language designed for validating form input!

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Save a lot more debloating your code. Storage is cheap. Processing power is not.