Comment by thinkingQueen
11 hours ago
Those are good venues to sneak JPEG XL into the mainstream. It would be a pity if it became another JPEG 2000. On the other hand, JPEG 2000 was probably just too advanced and computationally complex to be widely adopted at the time. Sometimes I look back at it and, after all the extensions and revisions, it feels like it has everything—but it’s still a niche codec. A cautionary tale, and a pattern that tends to repeat itself with codecs...
On top of being much more complex to encode and decode, and being encumbered by patents, JPEG 2000 was only marginally better than JPEG in terms of quality vs. size. At the time it came out, it wasn't worth using; nowadays it's thoroughly outclassed by any newer image codec (JPEG XL, WebP, HEIC, etc).