Is WebP a threat to JPEG?

There has been an awful lot of chatter lately about Google's new file format WebP (pronounced "weppy"). Let's break this down a little bit.

WebP is faster and smaller than JPEG.
The WebP gallery shows examples where they are 10% - 60% smaller in size than JPEG. This means that not only is the user saving valuable server space and hosting costs, but webpages that feature WebP images will also load faster and save bandwidth. With the advent of mobile websites and with more users utilizing cellular 3G networks rather than T1 lines, faster and leaner webpages are a must. Additionally, suggesting a way to reduce your organization's server space could earn you an Employee of the Year award.

TIFF is still the standard for archival master images.
However, many institutions and organizations have an arsenal of JPEGs for several purposes: digital exhibitions, gallery images, low-res teaser images, etc. JPEG is lossy. WebP is lossy. The last thing you want is your master digital files to lose quality. In terms of digital longevity and permanency, TIFF is definitely the way to go (or PNG or GIF or PDF). WebP is not trying to replace this.

JPEG2000 is still dragging feet- Will WebP take off?
The JPEG has been around for nearly 20 years and has been the standard for basic, accessible images almost as long. JPEG2000 was created 10 years ago and is smaller in size and better compression. But, why hasn't it lifted off? It's a better file format than JPEG, for sure. Maybe it's the tangle of patents surrounding the format. Maybe it's that browsers can't handle them. Or, maybe it's that it doesn't play well with many other applications. Though some may think the future may be grim for the WebP, the overall idea of less bandwidth and space being used may outweigh any problems. Already, applications, like Pixelmator, are beginning to integrate WebP formats. Maybe it's just a matter of time?