Well in fairness when WebP support was added in Chrome over 10 years ago it was a massive, massive improvement over the existing image formats that were being commonly used on the web.

JPEG XL's problem is that WebP has now existed for 10 years and has widespread support.

Firefox didn't add Webp support for a long time, because it wasn't a massive, massive improvement over the existing image formats.

Neither of your links support your claim that Firefox avoided adding Webp support because it wasn't technically superiour.

Instead, what happened was that WebP started to be used on the web and this broke websites for Firefox users.

Since Firefox is by no means dominant on the web, we had to follow suit or lose more users.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Mozilla didn't support WebP for years. I'm fairly certain one of the official reasons they gave for not doing it was that it wasn't a massive jump in quality over JPEG, which obviously would have been good for the web if it was true and motivation for them to support it sooner than they did.

Notably, when they did add it, Edge did so around the same time, which seems to me suggests some politics in the background, (not in a conspiracy sense, just an agreement based on interperability) which I suspect might apply this time too.

Webp's lossy mode may be uninspiring, but it also has a good lossless mode and supported both lossy and lossless transparency.

Worth noting that JPEG XL has a pretty good lossless mode too, however, I think in many cases you actually want to just use a lossy AVIF or JPEG XL in places you'd previously have used "lossless".

It was kind of an artificial split, much like text, alpha transparency or line drawing might be done as PNG, not because you wanted them to be "lossless" but because JPEG would mess them up due to a lack of tools for reproducing non-natural photo content.

See the lossless comparison here for more:

https://jakearchibald.com/2020/avif-has-landed/

don't look there -- that 'lossless' comparison is not actually lossless

here, a better comparison: https://siipo.la/blog/whats-the-best-lossless-image-format-c...

this one is also good: https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/fjddcj/lossless_image_...

basically: JPEG XL does things right, WebP lossless is also not bad (14.8 % worse than JPEG XL), PNG is ok for its age (46.3 % worse), AVIF didn't focus on lossless (63.0 % worse)

I don't think that's the entire story. Google actively pushed WebP, for example recommending it to webmasters in their page speed evaluation tools (and site performance, as judged by Google, is a factor in your search ranking).

If they invested the same resources into improving and promoting JPEG XL, we'd be using JPEG XL. I'm not saying the outcome is objectively worse, but ultimately, they did pick the winner here.

For a recap of WebP history: https://bit.ly/image_ready_webp_slides

If you look at slide #14, you'll see Opera was an early adopter. Firefox published a "No" blog-post in 2013, and Safari removed WebP support from Sierra preview in 2016, eventually adding it back in 2020. Stuff happened.

And yes, when WebP was created there was a real, non-incremental, need for a Web-oriented image format. Nowadays, it's just incremental improvement on this idea for browsers.

(disclaimer: WebP initiator here)