Re: sqyoosh
Not a bad tool. It seems to work best with photos/images that don’t contain any fine text, like this plate of food on fadhel’s website. I tried it with a couple of my own website images, and some worked better than others.
You didn’t test with pictures from your website that already are compressed with photoshop. Test with a picture that have full resolution, and you will notice that squoosh do a much better work than photoshop do 
I have some photos I have to add to a construction client’s website in the next few days. I will try it with those. The thing is, none of my clients ever supply images to me that haven’t already been subjected to some form of compression. It’s not like they take pictures with professional high-end cameras that use RAW capture settings. They use various cell phones, all of which seem to have different resolutions, aspect ratios, compression settings, etc… Everything I get is already in .jpg format, so some manner of compression has already been applied to it. I pretty much edit everything in Photoshop to correct things like perspective, hue, saturation, touch up anomalous areas, and so on.
Another tool for images on your website. Upload your picture and you get pictures for all devices.
I remember when I got my very first external hard drive. IT was for for my Commodore Amiga. The year was 1989, it was 20 megabytes, and it cost almost $800.00. I used to use a utility that would compress the files “on the fly” using .lzw compression, reducing their size by almost 50%. So my 20 meg drive was effectively 40 megs, with only a slight reduction in the time it took to open and save files.
Of course, the notion of using something like that today would be laughable. Today, you can buy a 20 TERABYTE drive for about the same price, which is MILLION times the amount of storage, and the file transfer speeds are concurrently faster.
The efforts we are going to at this point in time to compress images to reduce file size and improve website loading speeds are going to become just as pointless as when I was using file compression to increase storage capacity on my hard drive 30 years ago.
In 10 years (probably less), all this concern over image size and page loading speed will be moot. The fact that Google currently uses page loading speed as a ranking metric is frustratingly obnoxious, because it forces us to do more work to accommodate a limitation that won’t exist in the very near future. The user experience should (and eventually will) be whatever the website developer wants.
Eventually, the internet will become a form of augmented reality, and then holographics, so there will always be a need for more storage size, bandwidth and throughput, but having lived through the “dark ages” of 160 kilobyte, single sided floppy discs, I know this is all just a temporary, soon be eliminated, obstacle.
Great tools for create responsive images complete with html tag. It also can help people to understand responsive image.
I agree with you, but for now, if we use visitor point of view, I also agree with google decision. If google put a website with slow response on top SERP, this is also frustratingly obnoxious.
Honestly, I don’t think Google can even explain how their ranking algorithm works at this point.
I have a client whose website has virtually no errors on it, their domain is 7 years older than the two competing businesses in their town, their website scores almost perfectly across the board on Lighthouse (whereas their competitor’s sites are all 30-50 numbers lower.) Their site scores significantly higher on Page Speed Insights then their competitors. Their competitors sites are missing H1 tags, alt tags, they have lower content to html ratios, horrible keyword choice/distribution/density, fewer backlinks from lower-authority sites, and minimal social media presence. Yet, I simply cannot get my client to outrank them.
The only differences I can find is that my client is .1 star lower on Google reviews (4.9 vs 5.0 - even though my client has many more 5 star reviews in total) and the competitor has a YouTube video on their homepage.
IMO, Google gives preference to websites that use Google service (YouTube) and have a higher Google review score, even if the website is slower than competitors, full of errors, has fewer backlinks, and horrible keyword distribution.