Welp, I downloaded and compiled all the necessary dependencies, then compiled the GIMP plug-in found here:

http://registry.gimp.org/node/25366

Ubuntu is treating the filetype as an audio file so I have a musical note representing the file in file manager, but a quick file association by doing a properties and open with GIMP editor solves the file association but the musical note remains.

You can see a picture I posted on the Registry comment, so it's clearly working. However, I tried doing the same here and Gimp Chat tossed some SQL database errors at me and claimed I was trying to flimflam the server with my nonsense file type.

Anyway, the file size is significant. The original png was 66kb, the webp file is 23kb. Just looking at them side by side, you can't really tell which is which.

A second attempt to display it (since the file extension is not yet allowed on Gimp Chat):

no alpha channel???
that makes it inferior to pngs - at least for now.

at least I can see the picture.....

Without allowable transparency i really have no use for it.
PNG extension has everything i need.

I wouldn't mind a lossy image that has transparancies since PNGs can blow up in size quite fast. A jpeg like format with embedded transparancies would be a game changer that is for sure.

They are actually working on alpha channels for the webp format. I was merely checking it out to see what all the fuss was about.

I don't really understand why many are taking such a headstrong stance against it BEFORE it's actually had a chance to develop. Clearly there are cons, but there are cons with almost ANYTHING, including APNG (which isn't widely supported, yet Mozilla seems to back it). Sounds more like a browser war mentality than a real valid support concern.

I could look for a hundred different reasons not to use Firefox, (their browser has been breached by hackers countless times), but I still use it.

I still remember the HD Photo format that Microsoft was proposing a few years back (it had alpha channel support too) and was touted at being twice the quality as jpeg at the same size as I recall. Nothing ever happened with this one either to my knowledge. We need a jpeg replacement; long overdue. It's really time to stop talking about it and start implementing it. PNGs are fine and but for the file size, is more then acceptable. It would be cool to have a lossy PNG capability like TIFs do; having jpeg size/compression with alpha channel capabilities would make PNG the format of choice, but don't think the PNG developers want this.

apparently, only chrome and Opera can naturally "see" webp images.

looking at the comparison on that my opera page, it's not 'better' quality, just more smoothed out.