Glenn is kvetching about having to buy both types of HD players:

The prices have dropped enough that I might be able to buy this high-rated HD-DVD player and this Sony Blu-Ray player and not spend much, if any, more. On the other hand, the notion of having to buy two just bugs me somehow.

My preference, actually, is to buy two things if I have the room, and I can afford them. Bundling functions in a single unit might seem convenient and cost saving, but the problem with it is that if one component fails, you still have to either replace the entire thing, or at least replace the functionality of the part that failed. The old example would be a combination microwave/range. The microwave dies, and you not only have to go replace it, but you can’t find a stock replacement for it that will fit the range, so you have a permanently dead microwave in your kitchen, and have to take up space with the new one on or under the counter. Unless you go out and replace the entire stove, even though the range and conventional oven are just fine.

A more recent, and mundane example is these television/DVD combos. If the TV dies, it’s become a boat anchor, unless there’s a way to get the DVD output from it to bypass the TV. Plus, some of them (amazingly) are HDTVs, with standard DVDs (hopefully, they at least do up conversion). So you get instant obsolescence, built in! My (two-channel, thank you) stereo system still uses a separate pre-amp and power amp.

A risk analyst (like yours truly in his day job) would say that by increasing the complexity you’re increasing the probability of failure (can anyone say Space Shuttle? Apparently it really bugged NASA to have to buy both a launch vehicle and an orbital laboratory…)

But I suspect that bundling is the wave of the future, particularly as electronics continues to become less and less expensive (as living space becomes more so).