I think there's another cause: webp does nothing new.
It does existing things in slightly fewer bytes, so there's no features that drive us from older formats to webp.
While ~25% may seem like a lot, it's not like the difference between x264 and x265 which directly influences the quality and resolutions available. It's also not going to make the difference between "usable" and "unusable", so while the images occupy the lion share of the load time for many websites, we've been trained to make that work, so there's no pull to move away from there either. And sure, any speed up is nice, but this is going to make only slight difference rather than a completely different experience.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think there's another cause: webp does nothing new.
It does existing things in slightly fewer bytes, so there's no features that drive us from older formats to webp.
While ~25% may seem like a lot, it's not like the difference between x264 and x265 which directly influences the quality and resolutions available. It's also not going to make the difference between "usable" and "unusable", so while the images occupy the lion share of the load time for many websites, we've been trained to make that work, so there's no pull to move away from there either. And sure, any speed up is nice, but this is going to make only slight difference rather than a completely different experience.