Perhaps that should have been worded more precisely: "The fact that some new image formats can't be added"? Code maintenance costs are the stated justification for not adding JXL. We can assume any other new image format that isn't AVIF would hit the same barrier. What if tomorrow someone comes out with e.g. a new binary vector format? Same thing. Apple may well be the real issue, but that just moves the question around (why doesn't Apple add JXL, well, probably code maintenance costs too).
It's good that they're adding AVIF, but it will presumably be the last image codec added for a very long time, especially as we face the question of who will bother researching new such codecs now. And IIUC the primary reason they like AVIF is that it's basically a video codec in image form, so again - the choice is being dominated by code maintenance costs.
So I think the wider point stands. There is already a big issue with Chrome adding features that Safari and Firefox never match. Now this. It suggests the architecture is not scalable. Why shouldn't we have as many image formats as people want to create? It's due to the desire by browser makers for everything to be in HTML5 rather than bringing back a plugin architecture.
It's good that they're adding AVIF, but it will presumably be the last image codec added for a very long time, especially as we face the question of who will bother researching new such codecs now. And IIUC the primary reason they like AVIF is that it's basically a video codec in image form, so again - the choice is being dominated by code maintenance costs.
So I think the wider point stands. There is already a big issue with Chrome adding features that Safari and Firefox never match. Now this. It suggests the architecture is not scalable. Why shouldn't we have as many image formats as people want to create? It's due to the desire by browser makers for everything to be in HTML5 rather than bringing back a plugin architecture.