I wasn't really sold on the argument initially, given they admit there's some real lossless usecases, but this is a good bit from the conclusion:

> Not to mention an additional compatibility headache now exists for anyone just trying to download an image from the Internet and use it somewhere – it was hard enough to get widespread WebP adoption, and I don't think it's worth doubling the pain by having to climb the same hill for AVIF and JPEG XL. Especially when JPEG XL doesn't appear to add anything to the Web platform.

It is very annoying downloading an image for the web and then trying to upload it somewhere else also on the web during these transition periods.

▲

computerbuster 9 hours ago | parent [-]

There exist lossless use cases, for sure. I think most people would be well-served by high-fidelity lossy that saves a lot of bits while still looking perceptually identical. Whoever isn't served by that most likely doesn't care about size savings, and can stick with lossless PNG.

	▲	account42 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with that is that the idea many stakeholders (especially big platforms) have of "perceptually lossless" is actually compressed to hell garbage. The only way you as a user can ever guarantee actually perceptually lossless is to use a fully lossless format.