Storage devices such as hard disk drives (HDDs), solid-state drives (SSDs), and NVMe drives are reaching increasingly ridiculous prices and becoming more difficult to obtain. With hosting services raising prices throughout 2026 and possibly more increases coming in 2027, I have to ask: why aren't hosting providers doing more to support newer and more efficient formats such as AVIF and WebP for images and AV1 and AV2 for video?
Hetzner, for example, has already raised prices multiple times in 2026, citing rising hardware costs, and other hosting providers have also increased their prices. With the growing demand for hardware driven in part by the AI boom, I don't see these problems disappearing overnight. Even if prices eventually come back down, it could take some time for supplies to return to normal.
I think AVIF would be one of the best choices for image storage, and services such as Mastodon, Bluesky, and web hosting providers should be doing more to support it wherever possible. AVIF generally offers better compression than WebP while maintaining comparable image quality, which means smaller files without sacrificing how an image looks. When you consider how many images are uploaded and stored across the internet every day, even modest savings could add up to something substantial.
I know that encoding AVIF images is more CPU-intensive, but why not encourage people to use their own hardware to convert images before uploading them? That would reduce the processing burden on hosting services, especially if they preserved the original format instead of converting it back into something less efficient. Some processing will still be necessary for thumbnails and compatibility, but surely we can make better use of the formats we already have. I have already switched to AVIF on every platform I use that supports it, and WebP where AVIF isn't supported. Personally, I would rather standardize on AVIF because I don't see much sense in continuing to use larger files when smaller ones can accomplish the same thing.
Even YouTube is preparing to move beyond AV1 and begin streaming video using AV2, potentially as early as 2027. If a company handling the enormous amount of video that YouTube does sees the benefits of a more efficient format, shouldn't the rest of the internet be taking a closer look at what we can do with images and video too?
As an internet community, we need to work collectively to counterbalance these ridiculous hardware shortages and rising prices. Supporting more efficient formats could reduce unnecessary storage and bandwidth consumption, benefiting hosting providers, independent websites, and the people who use them. Switching formats won't solve the hardware shortages, but it could help us make better use of the resources we already have, especially for smaller hosting providers and independent services that don't have the financial resources of larger companies.
Is it really that hard for everyone to come together on something that could benefit all of us? WebP is fine, but AVIF generally offers better compression, so let's work toward supporting it wherever it makes sense. And phone manufacturers, please do your part too. I would love to see AVIF become a more widely supported option for taking and storing photos directly on our phones. While we're improving compatibility, let's also have better native support for Apple's HEIC format, not instead of AVIF, but alongside it. I get so tired of having to convert images back and forth just to use them on different devices, browsers, or websites.
Even if the AI hardware boom eventually goes bust, I still think these improvements would benefit the internet long after the current shortages are over. We should be making better use of what we have, regardless of what happens to hardware prices.
Just my 2 cents.
Storage is still incredibly cheap. YT is using av1 to reduce bandwidth, not storage.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading and commenting. While YT is using AV1 and planning to use AV2 for bandwidth savings, a natural benefit of better compression likely reduces storage space as well.
DeleteI would politely push back on your claim that storage is incredibly cheap. Storage is not incredibly cheap, nor is it readily available in 2026, which is one reason prices are so high. NVMe storage is not cheap at all and larger size drives are sometimes 3 or 4 times what was "normal".
Besides, cheap to whom? A large enterprise, a small hosting service, or an individual?
About $25/tb, which can store a LOT of video of either format. In stock on Amazon right now.
Deletehttps://diskprices.com/?locale=us&condition=new&disk_types=external_hdd,external_hdd25,internal_hdd,internal_hdd25,internal_sshd,internal_sas,external_ssd,internal_ssd,m2_ssd,m2_nvme,u2
Nvme is expensive, but typically you only need SSDs for your OS and maybe a game you play often and really care about load times for. Media is just fine on an hdd.
Good conversation, but I think you're missing the broader point of my post. AVIF helps, but it doesn't eliminate these hardware shortages or rising prices. There will always be exceptions and good deals, but storage prices have risen significantly, and shortages remain an issue. My main point is that AVIF should be more widely adopted as a standard image format. This helps reduce storage and bandwidth usage while maintaining good image quality and can make web pages load faster.
DeleteI didn't think this topic would cause such a discussion, and I might have to do a follow-up post just on storage shortages and prices. Thank you for your perspective.
It actually increases storage, because YT keeps dozens of versions encoded in different codecs, any new codec means more files, because they still keep the versions encoded in h264 etc.
DeleteHi Boraca, thanks for reading and commenting. That's a fair point for YouTube, but individual bloggers and smaller websites don't necessarily need to maintain multiple versions. My hope is that broader adoption eventually eliminates the need for so many formats, reducing storage and bandwidth consumption. :)
DeleteI agree, but I think we should move to JPEG XL, not AVIF. It has roughly the same compression level, but it has many more features. Progressive decoding, bacwkards compatibility with old JPEG files, more metadata options. Its much more versatile :)
ReplyDeleteI’m not opposed to JPEG XL at all. Honestly, it didn't cross my mind when I wrote the post. I chose AVIF because of its established browser and mobile support and its relationship to AV1 video. My main concern is reducing storage, bandwidth, and unnecessary conversions. If JPEG XL proves better, I'm all for it. I just want one efficient format that works everywhere. :)
DeleteIf only it was useful in any context outside of web. No email clients support it.
ReplyDeleteI was curious about this, so I tested AVIF in eM Client 11. It successfully displayed an AVIF image in a received HTML email. I also saved the image and verified through its file header that it really was AVIF. Support is incomplete. The editor doesn't offer AVIF as an image format for insertion, and dragging an AVIF into a message attaches it rather than displaying it inline.
DeleteSo at least some email clients can display AVIF, but I agree that support is still inconsistent and needs improvement.
Better encoders for existing formats, and better presets that preserve higher visual quality instead of bit-starving images should be the better starting point.
ReplyDelete- For JPG, Jpegli from the jpeg-xl authors surpasses Mozjpeg (which is commonly used by services to recompress 'baseline' jpegs into progressive one in addition to shrinking filesize), approaching lossy webp's efficiency.
- 'lossy png' is an option now, and shows that lossless formats could use tuned inference to achieve comparable gains with no bitstream changes needed. For most formats, that would be encoding utility preprocessing or purpose-specific encoders (pngquant for png).
Thanks for the information and reading! I wasn't familiar with Jpegli, and improving existing formats certainly makes sense. My thinking was more about moving toward one modern, efficient format that works across platforms without having to worry about compatibility or unnecessary conversions. Reducing storage and bandwidth consumption while maintaining good image quality was my main concern. ๐
Delete