I'm with you
Simple is good. HDMI is already overly complicated.
We already had Component, which is dead simple and just works. Technically it's just as capable as far as resolution goes, and superior for distance runs, but has been handicapped to make HDMI more desirable.
We also had DVI, if you prefer digital interconnection. HDMI is just DVI with side-by-side audio and copy protection to make sure no one is copying movies with a digital capture device -- you know, because that's the most desirable method these days...
So, let's see. We'll take a perfectly good digital interface (well, for short distances anyway) and add a bunch of complex negotiation schemes for authentication and encryption, then fail to engineer it correctly and completely the first time so there will be "versions" that consumers get to deal with down the road. On top of this, we'll continue to use a physical medium (UTP) that has barely sufficient bandwidth for high-frequency digital (square-wave) signalling despite the fact that consumers will -- absolutey WILL -- want to run them long distances (this is already evident by the amount of coax, composite, and component cable running through homes and businesses.)
And now, it's wireless! A medium that has always restricted bandwidth and had performance and compatibility issues compared to equivalent wired technologies. (Does this miraculous technology compress the video to compensate? I would imagine it has to.)
So yeah, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to work particularly well.
