The reports that were posted did not single out HDMI so much as they highlighted the fact that the relative complex interactions between ALL the software that was needed to provide the digital source routing AND room correction AND UI features was far more time consuming than previous iterations of products. The decisions to test "edge case" situations that filled the RAM when using multiple room correction readings caused changes in the amount of memory that was deemed acceptable and those HW changes required additional changes in the firmware...

In summary the whole decision to utilize a "super premium" room correction (which most mainstream home theatre customers at tis price point demand ...) was I believe the bigger hurdle in the shift for the 978. There is probably something to be said that the lessons learned from the 998 failed HDMI effort helped to ease the transition to HDMI 1.4a. I think there is also a little bit of the "Vietnam War fought by WWII Generals Problem" -- problems that cropped in the last battle were addressed but NEW problems got neglected (and some of things neglected were the 'business side'..).

{As an aside I sorta wonder if the Trinnov folks worked better with the Sherwood Newcastle people as the tech was "newer" then or if Trinnov is less resource intensive than Audyssey, an interesting question that hopefully will be addressed by a firm that has experience with both...}

Overall the "shifts in thinking" are what DID NOT happen fast enough to get EITHER product from inception to production. Modern consumer electronics is more like "guerrilla warfare" that the more staid pace of previous offerings / battles...
These "shifts in thinking" are not unique to home theatre equipment. I recall that when automakers made changes to how "integrated" the entertainment / navigation systems on their vehicles were some choose to partner with firms like Alpine or Pioneer while others partnered with MSFT and still others tried to cob together enough talent in-house. Even today there is WIDE variation in what sorts "features" the in-vehicle systems support. Fortunately in most cases these are not "make it or break it" type differences for the car makers as most still offer some relatively "low tech" option too.

In contrast for a firm like Outlaw that cannot really afford to have a broad range of product offerings the painful process of trying to build a "core" feature set that is high enough to offer good value means that they when there are stumbling blocks an entire part of their business is absent...