> And one without an efficiently coded alpha channel and scalability to
> lossless? I find it really hard to believe that something will be widely
> adopted unless it satisfies a broad set of needs otherwise we're left
> with JPEG being "good enough and widely compatible"
Why does it need to be lossless? PNG already provides lossless, for the small number of people who want that.
> As of right now it sounds to me like a somewhat myopic improvement which
> may only be attractive someone who already has a VP8 decoder, needs to
> squeeze down their bandwidth bills, doesn't care about all the other
> features lacking in JPEG, and controls both the server and the client.
This will directly cut Google's bandwidth bills. And they can roll it out instantly to millions of Android phones. It's an open standard and better than JPG, although maybe not as good as it would be if software patents didn't exist. The extra legal risk to Google is nil because it uses technology already present in VP8. I would think it would be obvious, but apparently it needs to be pointed out: when you see an opportunity to cut expenses with absolutely no risk-- you take it!