hecking HECK webp i loathe this stupid useless garbage file format it should be destroyed and everyone who ever chose to implement it, develop it, or advocate it should have their teeth pulled out one by one and their urethra stapled shut and have a urinary fistula out their butt so they leak pee all the time

You only hate it cause none of your shitty proprietary lazy ass applications implement it.
As a format it's perfectly fine if not superior. Stop complaining about webp and start complaining about developers not implementing it.

>>105698617 (OP)
i like webp

>>105698617 (OP)
I hate the support for it. You can't use it on 4chan. You can't save it as webp on MS Paint.
Other than that, it's fine for the web, like if you have a website you should be using WEBP to reduce costs and improve loading.

avif can kick rocks too

>>105698801
this. webp is only a problem for windows and mac/iphone

4chan supports webp now (by auto-converting it), you don't need to pretend to hate it anymore.

>>105700222
It doesn't work.
I just tried it and it sayd Upload failed.

>>105698801
>you only hate it because it's inconvenient and you're forced to convert it to a normal file format to use it

>>105700275
Sounds like a skill issue to me.

Test

>>105700379
Or 4chan doesn't actually convert it and you're using a browser extension instead

>>105698617 (OP)
Stop using crappy old image viewers then

Searched /g/ to find this thread, glad someone shares my pain.

Is there any quick-fix solution, /g/urus? I'm no tech-wiz, but I'm bordering on superstition. I notice patterns in URLs. Change .webp to .jpg, and it serves me a JPEG. But is it the MIME type image/jpeg? Sometimes it is? Sometimes it is not. Phases of the moon.

Maybe for bandwidth/sneaky reasons, websites do not just give you the image file any more. BUT they have identifiable patterns (e.g. I can find the 'raw' image files of theguardian.com newspaper). So there is the SOURCE image, that's been processed, why not just us access that?

Very appreciative of ImgOps, but is there no browser extension that says "just give me the damn file"?

>>105701861
>websites do not just give you the image file any more
because they don't want you to "steal" it
anyone who likes webp is inching us one step closer to file formats you outright cannot copy
companies would love to implement this and already take steps to make downloading them more annoying than it ought to be

>>105698801
Trojan horse format that gives you shitty blurry lossy images while the extension pretends to be lossless

>>105698801
>stop complaining about crappy format being forced everywhere, start forcing it everywhere so somehow it will stop being crappy

>>105702190
thats my biggest problem with it, if you wanna be a lossy or lossless format its fine but a transitional shady format? fuck off, the web is already full of crap.

you're just mad you can't use it to lazily shitpost

>>105698801
>just use our slop goy

>>105702432
i fail to see why this is illegitimate

>>105698617 (OP)
jpeg xl exists, the rest is obsolete and deprecated

>>105702015
Why has the internet ended up this way?

>>105698617 (OP)
I love webp, I'm saving 9 dollars per month.

Oh, you think I should pay more just so you can leech and tell no difference in quality of the image you only look at for 3.4 seconds once and never again?

>>105701861
Yes, they are saving bandwidth. Google also gives you better SEO if you use webp due to better lighthouse metrics. As for .jpeg images turning out to be .webp images, I don't fully understand why they do this. In some cases, it is ".jpeg.webp", in which case it's just a result of them appending the ".webp" extension without removing the ".jpeg". this makes sense because removing the old extension can be error prone and is also non-reversible because .jpg and .jpeg are both used for some reason. It's much easier to just add ".webp" to it and be done with it. In the other cases, while I'm not exactly sure, one possibility is that again it (perhaps?) makes it easier from the server side. These dynamic image delivery systems an be pretty complex. For example they can server either webp or avif depending on if your device supports it. With this said, when the server sends you the initial html file with the <img> tags in it, how should it know what URL to put in the href? It is much easier (perhaps) to send the source URL and when the users GETs the URL, the server can decide what to actually send back. After all a URL doesn't actually mean anything. A server can send back whatever result it wants, it's not a file system.

>>105704557 (me)
Also
>reading theguardian

>>105704399
normalcattle invasion and money
when the internet was smaller nobody gave a shit if you "stole" their image in fact they would probably be happy you were spreading their stuff but now it's so cynical and commerical with almost nobody doing things or making suff purely out of love for it and passionate hobbyism

>>105704557
>>105701861
The CDNs can modify any content coming from a webpage in real time because site owners hand them the keys to the kingdom (certs). In other words. SSL/TLS is totally useless.

You can prevent it from serving you webp by disabling support within about:config in your browser (not sure if you can in chrome) or installing an add-on to do it automatically. The only thing it will break that matters is youtube thumbnails. Since they forced everything to webp when they started attempting to force this file format on everyone.

>>105700222
>4chan supports webp now (by auto-converting it)
No it doesn't, your 4chan XT script does

>>105700124
>webp is only a problem for most people, in most use cases
genius defense

>anime poster complains
ok so it’s a good thing
webpeeeeee is good

>>105704790
>ever not using 4chan with a userscript