Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome OS X Safari Desktops (Apple) IOS Iphone Microsoft Operating Systems Software iMac Apple Build News Technology

Safari Browser May Soon Be Just As Fast As Chrome With WebP Integration (thenextweb.com) 105

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Next Web: The Safari browser included in Apple's iOS 10 and macOS Sierra software is testing WebP, technology from Google that allows developers to create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. Basically, it's a way for webpages to load more quickly. The Next Web reports: "WebP was built into Chrome back at build 32 (2013!), so it's not unproven. It's also used by Facebook due to its image compression underpinnings, and is in use across many Google properties, including YouTube." Microsoft is one of the only major players to not use WebP, according to CNET. It's not included in Internet Explorer and the company has "no plans" to integrate it into Edge. Even though iOS 10 and macOS Sierra are in beta, it's promising that we will see WebP make its debut in Safari latest this year. "It's hard to imagine Apple turning away tried and true technology that's found in a more popular browser -- one that's favored by many over Safari due to its speed, where WebP plays a huge part," reports The Next Web. "Safari is currently the second most popular browser to Chrome." What's also interesting is how WebP isn't mentioned at all in the logs for Apple's Safari Technology Preview.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Safari Browser May Soon Be Just As Fast As Chrome With WebP Integration

Comments Filter:
  • by mmell ( 832646 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @05:15PM (#52544071)
    but is it faster or more efficient than Edge? I mean, spartan is the render engine to beat nowadays. MicroSoft said so.

    (*waits for angry mob with torches and pitchforks*)

    • I don't have that Windows 10 trash, but in terms of initial startup, IE 11 on Windows 7 wins by a mile on my machines (SSD, 2xSSD in RAID 0). I noticed this recently, and I'm not sure what caused it. IE 11 used to take forever to start up, just a few months ago. It's even faster than opening a new window when FF or Chrome are running.

      For actually rendering sites, they're all a shitshow until you block ads and third party cookies, and only allow whitelisted javascript.

      • Let me guess. Microsoft has done its usual trick of preloading it in the background and showing you the application window when you 'start' it up...

        • Unless this was done in a security (and not "optional" or "recommended") update in the last few months, that's not it. There's a marked change in initial start times compared to a few months ago and I've only installed the actual security updates on these 2 machines.

    • Not if Edge loads all those ads and Chrome/Adblock doesn't.
      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        Edge loads the ads. Chrome with Adblock loads the "disable your adblocker or sign up for a subscription" page. How can the cost of a subscription be converted to energy?

    • by donaldm ( 919619 )

      but is it faster or more efficient than Edge? I mean, spartan is the render engine to beat nowadays. MicroSoft said so.

      (*waits for angry mob with torches and pitchforks*)

      Microsoft does have a very good PR department that can convince the gullible plebian that anything they do is for the good of their users. Sort of like the Inquisitors of old, except now they are protecting the god fearing mob (er! users) from those open source magicians who are trying to lead the faithful away from the Microsoft light..

      Here is a simple test anyone can perform. Got to this site [html5test.com] and just run their simple html5 test in the web browser of your choice. Yes even "Edge" if you are so inclined

  • by Anonymous Coward

    FLIF improves on webp by another 14%.
    Hope it stabilizes soon.

    http://flif.info/ [flif.info]

    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      Someone was mentionning BPG as well.

      Besting for compression is usually a very relative term as there is a tradeoff between quality, file size, compression time and decompression time.

      Now I haven't done any particular research on compression but all the things I read about FLIF and BPG only talked about filesize and quality. This is only part of the equation. Is there more result on this issue ?

      • there is a tradeoff between quality, file size, compression time and decompression time.

        Only with video does complexity become a practical concern. With a few still images on a web page, even the lowest-end CPUs around can decode them instantly. In fact the speed-up you get from the lesser bandwidth required more than makes up for a little more decoding time.

  • by halfdan the black ( 638018 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @05:32PM (#52544165)
    This is an extremely poorly written abstract and so completely full of buzzwords.

    WebP is a freaking image file format, its that freaking simple. I mean 500 words of bullshit about "technology from Google that allows developers to create smaller, richer images that make the web faster.",
    Literally all they had to say was WebP is like JPG except it compresses more. Thats it, no need to say anything else.

    • by rrp ( 537287 )
      Except webp isn't like jpg. It's like a combination of jpg, png, and gif all rolled in to one (webp supports lossless, alpha channels, and animation).
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Does it help monitor what images you view so google can show you the most relevant ads?

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      And as an image file format, it doesn't mean dick unless the web site serves up WebP format images.

      • by slew ( 2918 )

        And as an image file format, it doesn't mean dick unless the web site serves up WebP format images.

        Or your ISP recompresses the images for you (not that they using webP yet).

  • by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @05:37PM (#52544185)
    These days - aside from (hypothetical and inevitably blocked) ads - it's not images that are the root problem. It's the half gigabyte of javascript.

    I'm sorry Mr. Went To School For Web Design, but the moving pull-down menus and dynamic sliding content and whatnot is just not needed (except to justify your career). When I visit a website, all I really need are maybe four buttons: "BUY OUR SHIT", "DOWNLOAD UPDATES FOR OUR SHIT", "READ DOCUMENTATION ABOUT OUR SHIT", and "CONTACT US FOR ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR SHIT WE CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO PUT ON OUR WEB SITE".

    Skip all the embedded activity tracking, metrics, demographics and dynamic content and we could go back to the golden days when web pages were under a megabyte on average without images.
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      The activity tracking is used to determine which SHIT to recommend that each visitor BUY.

    • golden days when web pages were under a megabyte on average without images

      I remember being told that an image should never have more than 8KB, less if it's only a minor element.

      That megabyte per page becomes far less negligible when you, say, need to visit just your bank's page when abroad (over international roaming) and a single visit (several subpages, 7MB total) sets you back $100. Now think about kids in rural Africa connecting their donated OLPCs.

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        International travel is a luxury. To save money compared to what your carrier charges for international roaming, you could find Wi-Fi, or you could whip out your passport (for ID pursuant to applicable know-your-customer laws) and buy a burner SIM for each country to which you travel.

  • by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @06:29PM (#52544425)

    On Macs I use Safari first, Chrome second and Chrome only on Windows. Safari runs circles around Chrome, so I definately wouldn't like Safari becoming "as fast as Chrome" as it would indicate making it slower than it currently is.

    • by tgv ( 254536 )

      Safari's is much faster for Javascript-heavy pages. The only advantage WebP would bring is that Safari could download smaller files, so in principle present the page a bit earlier than with other file formats.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Interesting. On multiple [digitaltrends.com] benchmarks [makeuseof.com] Chrome appears to be faster where it counts - Javascript performance, network performance, rendering speed. It's also better, in terms of standards compliance and accurate rendering.

      If Safari really is "running rings" around Chrome on MacOS, that suggests that Apple is either favouring Safari somehow (like Microsoft did by pre-loading a lot of IE on Windows) or crippling Chrome somehow (like they do on iOS by forcing it to use a slower version of Apple's HTML/JS engine).

  • WebP comparison (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmv ( 93421 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @07:29PM (#52544661) Homepage

    For those interested, I recently setup a comparison [xiph.org] between different image formats, including WebP, Daala, BPG and JPEG.

  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @08:20PM (#52544825) Journal

    WebP support is nice, but pretty trivial. It's WebM (video) support that everyone has been asking Apple to add, for years now. You can bet iPhone users would like smaller YouTube videos, WebRTC video conferencing, etc., but Apple is holding-on tight to H.264 AVC as the only available video compression format. Any coincidence that they are among the companies earning patent royalties from patent licensing the format?

    Apple is the one big hold out, preventing adoption of better, open and free video formats on the web. Though WebP is somewhat related, it doesn't get us any closer to WebM and the open web, which Apple is single-handedly holding-up. Absolutely every other major tech company has thrown their support behind the Alliance for Open Media.

    See:

    - http://pipedot.org/story/2015-... [pipedot.org]

    - http://pipedot.org/story/2016-... [pipedot.org]

    • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

      How many phones have hardware support for WebM? Without hardware support, it will be worse on battery life than H.264.

      • Without hardware support, it will be worse on battery life than H.264.

        Hardware acceleration only improves battery life by "up to 36%". That's not terribly significant. - http://blog.webmproject.org/20... [webmproject.org]

        The power consumption of your screen still dominates. And that benchmark seems to be the best-case, with local media. So the savings from a smaller file being received over the cellular or WiFi radios will offer some incidental power savings for the WebM case, cutting even that modest 36% number down by a

        • 36% insignificant? That's the difference between 3 hours and four hours of video.

          • Yep, not terribly significant. Smartphones already don't last for entire days without top-up charges in-between, so making that a little bit worse will go almost unnoticed. People are already tethered to the wall (or a battery bank) if they use their phone that extensively.

  • Safari and Chrome may have been derived from WebKit at one point. But they’ve since diverged quite a lot. Google Docs in particular caused severe memory leaks in WebKit. Those were fixed in Chrome, but Apple has never imported those fixes, so Safari web content processes will eventially eat all your memory if you leave Google Docs open for a long time.

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet

Working...