You could make a similar case for audio. GP described Opus as "the definitive codec for lossy compression", which made me do a bit of a double take. Opus is absolutely the technically superior audio format, but when you want to give users a file you'll be sure they can play, you give them an MP3.
I expect JPEG and PNG to become for images what MP3 is today. And I expect H.264 to become that for video. These formats are too ingrained, whatever their technical limitations.
Technologists consistently underestimate the power of backwards compatibility. Itanium was better than AMD64, DVORAK is better than QWERTY, and I'm sure Esperanto is lightyears ahead of the monstrosity that is English. But backwards compatibility always wins, because it fits what the world was already designed around.
-----
(To be fair to GP, they said Opus is the definitive choice for the web, which may be true for integrated in-browser playback. But in other contexts, well, Amazon sells MP3s, not Opus files.)
I expect JPEG and PNG to become for images what MP3 is today. And I expect H.264 to become that for video. These formats are too ingrained, whatever their technical limitations.
Technologists consistently underestimate the power of backwards compatibility. Itanium was better than AMD64, DVORAK is better than QWERTY, and I'm sure Esperanto is lightyears ahead of the monstrosity that is English. But backwards compatibility always wins, because it fits what the world was already designed around.
-----
(To be fair to GP, they said Opus is the definitive choice for the web, which may be true for integrated in-browser playback. But in other contexts, well, Amazon sells MP3s, not Opus files.)