>>3224
>I find myself believing this unironically with each passing day. Especially since JPEG also supports lossless mode. And they're actually smaller than PNG (sometimes)
this statement should be more taken into account for its practical applications we deal daily.

>The patents on it have only expired few years ago, so the support for it isn't yet widespread.
so the server cannot activate those old patents...right.

>is it the killer feature of the jpeg imo. The all grey 171 bytes image? 17 kilobytes with regular Huffman coding. In 90% cases it's achieves superior compression to Huffman tables.
such an accessible feature has good results almost all the time....well, the commercialization and standardization served for something. A little detail but a practical one.

>there is no golden panacea for everything
this thread is based on testing and testing most of the time, even though it´s a bit more focused on gaining a different perspective of the original images. Although you have achieved to carry it into a technical point in the end.