Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status.
And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.
As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque."
I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.
But alright, I will move on. You don't have to respond.
> good, non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard
yet they won't be supporting it.
Whether you want to buy it or not, de-facto format on the web is JPEG and only JPEG, thanks to the historical momentum. Even webp is still expendable, because Mozilla and Microsoft hold long enough. And AVIF isn't being used anywhere, yet. So no, it isn't in other vendors' disinterest to drop support for Webp and AVIF, because JPEG would continue to be de-facto in that case.