I'm generally pretty pro-AI, but I find this icky. Of course, I wouldn't have noticed except the whiteboard drawing seemed not quite right, so I'll probably be fooled in the future.
Yep, I was totally nerd-sniped by the image. I've never seen an engineer draw a whiteboard diagram anywhere near that detailed and tidy. No acronyms, consistent title case, descenders on a baseline - everything about it is wrong. It's so counter to reality, I seriously wondered if it was a joke.
The Nano Banana team should be pissed Google PR is distributing such a terrible photo. The poses are stilted, expressions frozen, even the eye-lines are off. Why couldn't they just use a Google Pixel phone to snap a photo of real Google engineers in a real Google office and upload it to Google Photos? Not Google enough?
Based on what I've heard, Google is monitoring per-org usage and strongly / incessantly encouraging teams to experiment with the technology, so a lot of tokens get spent on pointless stuff like that. The preceding diagram, which is needlessly busy and blurry, appears to be AI-generated too.
Came here to say the same thing. Why add this fake image?
Website Obesity mentioned ! [0]
This project led me to propose the Taft Test:
Does your page design improve when you replace every image with William Howard Taft?
If so, then, maybe all those images aren’t adding a lot to your article. At the very least, leave Taft there! You just admitted it looks better.
Huge fan of JXL, but this article feels pretty AI sloppy. Not much said here, coming from the google blog I was hoping for some news about how they are pushing the format forward by introducing decoders in to Android and enabling on Chrome.
Android is the only mainstream OS that does not support JPEG XL right now.
Not to mention those IMAGES. Slop diagrams hurt
Weird they don't name Jon Sneyers - a person pivotal in creation of JPEG XL
That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it. The audacity...
> That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it
This post is written by three of the authors of the JPEG XL spec, implementors of the reference and rust implementations of libjxl, and...longtime google employees.
From what I can tell, it's written by Gemini
[deleted]
> Safari (2023) led among major browsers, while Firefox and Chrome currently maintain experimental support.
Yeah, but they left out that Chrome removed their own support for JPEG XL saying no one in the industry was in favour of it despite everyone seeing it was the future screaming for it and building support for it into their own products.
Chrome's blink was the only major browser engine not supporting it and that prevented it from becoming a web standard and they refused to acknowledge they were wrong.
Chrome only backtracked once jpeg-xl was subsumed into the PDF standard because if Chrome did not support jpeg-xl, they would by extension also not be supporting pdf.
jpeg xl is also now used for the latest version of the DNG raw image format, and the iphone now encodes raw images as jpeg xl in DNG. It's so clearly the future for photography that Google is holding back. Apple surprisingly has been the first with full support everywhere in their OSs and in Safari.
Safari is currently lacking animation and progressive decoding - still ahead of everyone else currently.
Looks like by the end of the year we can expect Chrome and Firefox support.
Maintain in a sense. Google introduced it in Chrome as an experimental flag, then removed it with no real explanation, and only just brought it back.
[dead]
Out of experimental when?
Probably got some time to go. The new rust decoder likely needs more time to be proven reliable and safe, and Firefox doesn't even get the flag to turn it on until the next release 152.
Mostly off topic, but why is the spec for JPEG and JPEG XL paywalled? I wouldn't call them open standards if they're not available free-of-charge to the public.
It's an open standard because the concepts and reference implementation are free and open source even if the PDF is paywalled. Realistically you could just pirate the PDF and write a jpeg xl encoder/decoder and your code wouldn't be infringing on any patents.
Seems "closed but royalty free" would be a more accurate description then.
Splitting hairs on terminology I guess. Very few people are interested in the PDF that specifies the format vs being able to include decoders in software and on devices without paying a royalty for every device. There are alternative documents and the last draft copy which are free legally. As well as the reference code.
"Open Standard" means "Anybody is allowed to buy it"
I personally think something like the qok format is a better way to go. Make something that performs well and is dirt simple to implement.
I'm behind -- did Chrome un-remove JXL support? Google is suddenly behind it again? Why/how did they change their minds?
Yes. They're adding it back to Chrome.
This last January at FOSDEM there was a panel with representatives from different browser companies. During the panel Kadir Topal, a web platform product manager at Google, indicated that because of the interest they saw in JPEG XL through the Interop Project that they changed their course on supporting it.
They added it back as an experimental flag again. Likely the new rust based decoder and adoption in to other platforms and standards changed their decision.
> In this Gemini-reconstructed scene, ...
I'm generally pretty pro-AI, but I find this icky. Of course, I wouldn't have noticed except the whiteboard drawing seemed not quite right, so I'll probably be fooled in the future.
Yep, I was totally nerd-sniped by the image. I've never seen an engineer draw a whiteboard diagram anywhere near that detailed and tidy. No acronyms, consistent title case, descenders on a baseline - everything about it is wrong. It's so counter to reality, I seriously wondered if it was a joke.
The Nano Banana team should be pissed Google PR is distributing such a terrible photo. The poses are stilted, expressions frozen, even the eye-lines are off. Why couldn't they just use a Google Pixel phone to snap a photo of real Google engineers in a real Google office and upload it to Google Photos? Not Google enough?
Based on what I've heard, Google is monitoring per-org usage and strongly / incessantly encouraging teams to experiment with the technology, so a lot of tokens get spent on pointless stuff like that. The preceding diagram, which is needlessly busy and blurry, appears to be AI-generated too.
Came here to say the same thing. Why add this fake image?
Website Obesity mentioned ! [0]
[0] (idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity): https://web.archive.org/web/20260421022440/https://idlewords...Huge fan of JXL, but this article feels pretty AI sloppy. Not much said here, coming from the google blog I was hoping for some news about how they are pushing the format forward by introducing decoders in to Android and enabling on Chrome.
Android is the only mainstream OS that does not support JPEG XL right now.
Not to mention those IMAGES. Slop diagrams hurt
Weird they don't name Jon Sneyers - a person pivotal in creation of JPEG XL
Here's a blog post by him: https://cloudinary.com/blog/2026-the-year-of-jpeg-xl
That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it. The audacity...
> That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it
This post is written by three of the authors of the JPEG XL spec, implementors of the reference and rust implementations of libjxl, and...longtime google employees.
From what I can tell, it's written by Gemini
> Safari (2023) led among major browsers, while Firefox and Chrome currently maintain experimental support.
Yeah, but they left out that Chrome removed their own support for JPEG XL saying no one in the industry was in favour of it despite everyone seeing it was the future screaming for it and building support for it into their own products.
Chrome's blink was the only major browser engine not supporting it and that prevented it from becoming a web standard and they refused to acknowledge they were wrong.
Chrome only backtracked once jpeg-xl was subsumed into the PDF standard because if Chrome did not support jpeg-xl, they would by extension also not be supporting pdf.
jpeg xl is also now used for the latest version of the DNG raw image format, and the iphone now encodes raw images as jpeg xl in DNG. It's so clearly the future for photography that Google is holding back. Apple surprisingly has been the first with full support everywhere in their OSs and in Safari.
Safari is currently lacking animation and progressive decoding - still ahead of everyone else currently.
Looks like by the end of the year we can expect Chrome and Firefox support.
Maintain in a sense. Google introduced it in Chrome as an experimental flag, then removed it with no real explanation, and only just brought it back.
[dead]
Out of experimental when?
Probably got some time to go. The new rust decoder likely needs more time to be proven reliable and safe, and Firefox doesn't even get the flag to turn it on until the next release 152.
Mostly off topic, but why is the spec for JPEG and JPEG XL paywalled? I wouldn't call them open standards if they're not available free-of-charge to the public.
It's an open standard because the concepts and reference implementation are free and open source even if the PDF is paywalled. Realistically you could just pirate the PDF and write a jpeg xl encoder/decoder and your code wouldn't be infringing on any patents.
Seems "closed but royalty free" would be a more accurate description then.
Splitting hairs on terminology I guess. Very few people are interested in the PDF that specifies the format vs being able to include decoders in software and on devices without paying a royalty for every device. There are alternative documents and the last draft copy which are free legally. As well as the reference code.
"Open Standard" means "Anybody is allowed to buy it"
I personally think something like the qok format is a better way to go. Make something that performs well and is dirt simple to implement.
I'm behind -- did Chrome un-remove JXL support? Google is suddenly behind it again? Why/how did they change their minds?
Yes. They're adding it back to Chrome.
This last January at FOSDEM there was a panel with representatives from different browser companies. During the panel Kadir Topal, a web platform product manager at Google, indicated that because of the interest they saw in JPEG XL through the Interop Project that they changed their course on supporting it.
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop
The video of the panel can be found at https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/7E7387-browser_in_202... . He starts speaking on the issue at about 13:00
They added it back as an experimental flag again. Likely the new rust based decoder and adoption in to other platforms and standards changed their decision.
AI slop article
[flagged]