Glad to see it happen. I'd prefer it there was just one format rather than both jxl and avif, but at least it's the final nail in the coffin of webp which seems to have accomplished little but annoy people for not much gain.

The wider ecosystem support is still far from commonplace, but it is slowly changing. iOS 18 wouldn't work with .jxl in Photos, but 27 does. Similarly, quick look and preview works fine on MacOS 27, thumbnails show up properly etc. I also found no issues with .jxl on linux, and image editors are slowly adding support as well.

Plain old jpg will still be everywhere for the next decade, but I'm glad that we finally have superior options with no real downsides, and without all the patent bullshit to boot.

▲

notnullorvoid 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What issue do people have with webp?

▲

nemomarx 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Still can't upload it to every site that takes images, my file browser doesn't preview them nicely for whatever reason, that kind of stuff.

	▲	hbn 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wonder how much lack of support is due to the name that seems to self-imply that it's only for the web. Seems like terrible branding if it wants to be taken seriously as a standard.

▲

cmplxconjugate 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Poor support in some instances. Apple lagged for a long time for iPhone support. Discord mobile still does not support animated webp's.

▲

slashink 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

(I work for discord)

Discord Mobile absolutely supports animated WebP (in fact I just tried uploading one to make sure I wasn't hallucinating here).

	▲	aquova an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Well while you're here, there definitely are some issues with animated image support. Just earlier this week I attempted to use an animated .avif as my avatar image. It uploaded fine, the preview showed it fine, but the actual applied image was static again. Not sure if there's some issues with in the pipeline to handle those.

▲

tasuki 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely support is even worse for both .jxl and .avif? If the annoying thing about .webp was lack of support, I don't think .jxl nor .avif solve any of that - just the opposite.

▲

F3nd0 2 hours ago | parent [-]

One thing to note is that even when WebP did eventually get support in many places, it often look a very long time because there just wasn’t that much motive or interest to support it. So for years it was the weird format you’d accidentally download from the web and have little luck getting to work off-line.

The non-exhaustive table linked below shows how long it took for different programs to support different image formats since their introduction. Outside of Chrome, Chrome in disguise, and whatever has become of Firefox, adoption of JPEG XL has been far more enthusiastic than it ever has for WebP—or AVIF, for that matter. So we are very unlikely to have a long period when JPEG XL only works on the web and nowhere else.

https://cloudinary.com/blog/2026-the-year-of-jpeg-xl#_strong...

	▲	nemomarx 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> even at the time of writing, inserting a WebP in a Google Docs results in “unsupported image type.” This is pretty wild. Google can't align their own tools for it?
	▲	cosmic_cheese 40 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right, due to slim support outside of browsers, webp files kinda turned into lumps of coal when downloaded, going from the image you wanted to a chunk of data that nothing but the browser knew what to do with. It was like the file format version of those fake-transparent PNGs with checkerboard background.

▲

dopa42365 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

webp = VP8 image

Nothing wrong with that per se, it's just old and limited, especially compared to avif/AV1 which would be like a theoretical VP10 at this point.