They forgot to remove the need for analog cables for multi-zone audio.  This feature would be used much more frequently than two way audio.  Very few people use internal TV tuners, but anyone buying even the most basic of receivers only needs to add a cheap pair of patio speakers.

This may be more of a need for multiple DSP’s, the new spec could have addressed this issue.

With the growing adoption of Media Servers and other devices that consumes content from different sources, including TV’s with internet support, I doubt there is a real need or value in the return audio channel.

Although I don’t have access to statistics that shows how many antennas are connected directly to a TV, in a system that is using HDMI cable with surround system, or how many of such installations, actually run an audio cable from the TV to the AV reciever, I wonder if there is sufficient need or if such need is going to sustain long enough to justify such modification to specifications.

Rather than return audio, a more beneficial addition could be an IR channel integrated into HDMI, which would help to eliminate the IR clutter.

Other than that, most of the additions are sweet.

Eyal, HDMI is still banking on CEC as their solution for “IR clutter.”

And I personally am banking on RF4CE from the Zigbee camp.

Indeed. however both are (relatively) new specifications (although CEC has been used in Europe and MidEast for many years in SCART) that are not yet adopted by “ALL” manufacturers and therefore cannot be utilized as a common solution.

Like yourself, I hope with the adoption of ZigBee by the DOE as a basic standard, we are going to witness an expedited adoption by more manufacturers. RF4CE definitely presents a more plausible option to IR.

Just to clarify, in my comment I was marely trying to compare the value of the return audio channel to another more valuable spec.

@Eyal is being to kind…This is the most ridiculous spec I have ever seen… What next? $10,000 carrier pigeons carrying canisters of film to move media from room to room?

Why are they trying to obsfucate something as simple as 2 pairs one for send and the other for receive?  It reminds me of the BS Chrysler and GM did for years re the wiring harnesses and instrumentation in their cars… look where their brilliant “engineering” and proprietary design approach led them and their suppliers… right into bankruptcy. 

CE and a/v “engineering” is testing the limits of consumer awarness and intelligence and press IS NOT HELPING either.  call a spade a spade.  the only way a/v CI’s can make money in this field is by charging ridiculous prices for t and m when pulling/selling these blatantly over priced cables and connectors.  what a farce!  And at 0 value to consumers. If u all think that consumers will not wise up to this cable/connector price gouging as IP connectivity and streaming data/communications becomes more ubiquitous over 2 pair, on the power grid and through the ether (wireless), then I have a bridge to sell u in brooklyn… I see many more bankruptcy coming in this industry.  U can fool some of us sometimes… But not all all the time…. TTL for cables like this… Months and not years…

Not to be negative, but slapping more features onto HDMI as if they were lumps of playdoh is putting the cart before the horse when existing features haven’t even been properly ironed out yet.

HDMI 1.3. 1.3a. 1.4. Does anyone else wonder why consumers get gun shy about this stuff?

Lee and others: It just sort of lacks the hype. Can you imagine?

NEW! HDMI 1.4 - It works!

That’s a good start, Julie.  But marketing-wise, we need to lose the version numbers.  1.4 indicates that it’s a work in progress and that 1.5.1a is already being cooked up in the lab.

Here’s some other potential slogans:

HDMI - IT WON’T RUIN YOUR DAY!

or

HDMI - A UNIFIED FORMAT, FINALLY!

Hey, I can dream.

@julie… u meant to say for a 1M hdmi cable:

Model A at $65 works and does everything your $7 enet patch cables does and more!

Model B @ $100 works much “super duper, awsome better” than Model A

Model C @ $145 works the “bestest of all, and you r just a loser if u don’t get that!.  Oh azd it works like Extcnds and makes your wife younger and sexier!”

should we have a tagline contest for HDMI 1.5?

What a disaster. Up to now HDMI has essentially been opposite of a network-type topography. It hardly even works in matrix switched environments with all that HDCP bs.

Now it can magically, wait for it, pass ethernet! Hurrah, but there is no reason. In a year or two we’re going to run only CAT5/6 or fiber to a display. No need for HDMI.

YAY, now I know why I haven’t invested in a HDMI capable receiver yet, because HDMI is not a standard, its a freakin constand work in progress.

@Drew and @Issac - Nice to know there is parity of opinions out there.  I guess if I was on the receivables vs. payables side of the equation re HDMI cables (or the license fees side) I would be very happy right now as money is rolling in.  I am patiently waiting for a company like “Cables and chips”, circa 1984 in NYC, Park Row (or fulton) that broke the twisted pair and serial cable “monopolies” and started to dump less expensive RS-232 and RJ-45 patch cables into the market in the mid 80’s.  Before that you had to pay the likes of ATT an arm and a leg for patch cables (or IBM for token ring patches and MAU’s, or 8228’s). Fact is now you could crimp a RJ-45 in seconds for the next to nothing cents vs. dollars.

Great. Yet another new, incompatible format. Just what we need!

For the record, I’m holding off on ungrading my media room until HDMI 1.7e becomes standard.

I always wonder why they do this, fix HDMI 1.3c to always work and call it HDMI.  When you combine Ethernet with it and put more audio channels on it, change the connector to a different style connector and call it something different like HDe.  This would allow people to use the normal component and HDMI connectors that work in case the new HDe doesn’t because they released it to early…