Rat:

The confusion behind current and future HDMI standards is undoubtedly the reason why Outlaw went with DVI: does the job, does what it says, and promises no more than it does. With HDMI, any solution available TODAY is more than likely NOT going to be upgradeable to 1.3 or beyond. If you bought today on the basis of HDMI and then found within 12 to 18 months that an upgrade was not possible due to hardware limitations, wouldn't you be REALLY tanked? That's why I think the Outlaws did the right thing -- they could have as easily avoided the whole dilema by not having EITHER DVI or HDMI, but at least they provided an option for those who have the requirement for digital video switching.

The architecture issues required to accomodate future HDMI "revs" and deliver full Rx/Tx with processing, as opposed to simply providing switching is, as I have detailed elsewhere, VERY expensive and complex at this point in time. A card-cage type arrangement is nice for computers, but as the product you have referred to proves, it, too, isn't cheap.

As has been debated often enough, what works for the high volume world of computers where the chip folks provide reference designs and then third party companies design and make the cards just does not work in the competative, yet relatively low-volume world of consumer audio/video components. You simply can't compare the two channels, their products, and the way in which those products are developed.

I'm afraid you also don't take into account the fact that as high volume devices, computers are less expensive than surround processors. Other than the very small segment that upgrades yearly, most consumers keep their systems for a considerably longer time than they keep a computer between upgrades. Thus, saying that it would be fine to go with a standard (oh, say HDMI) when you KNOW it will require a new box at high price within a short time just doesn't cut it.