Why PCM should be the future of Blu-ray audio, not TrueHD/DTS-HDMA

[mov9384ie]

Bitrate math:

The studio soundtrack for majority of movies is mastered at 5.1 24/48 (There are arguments that 24bits is wasteful for consumers and only studios need it to avoid rounding errors, but we'll forego that debate and just use 24bits). TrueHD & DTS-HDMA are considered to have similar specs

PCM
2 hours @ 5.1 24/48 LPCM = 6.21 Gbytes @ 6.9 Mbps

Dolby TrueHD
2 hours @ 5.1 24/48 TrueHD = 3.06 Gbytes @ 3.4 Mbps ABR with 5+ Mbps peaks


Now there are two main things to consider: capacity and bandwidth. For capacity you'll save 3 Gbytes and for bandwidth you'll save 2 Mbps. Are these savings necessary?

Look at this list of blu-ray movie bitrates: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

Ignore mpeg2 or bd25 movies because those are old non-factors. Ignore movies that waste space (2 video encodes for pip, 2 lossless tracks). Then find movies that wouldn't have 3 Gbytes to spare for pcm. You'll quickly find that capacity is not an issue.

As for bandwidth we do not know peak rates from the list. But there are movies that have excellent video quality while having 2 lossless tracks such as spiderman3. If spiderman3 can afford to have pcm and truehd simultaneously, then we know bandwidth for video bitrate peaks is not an issue.

So given that blu-ray is built to handle pcm audio and that pcm support is MANDATORY and exists on all players, why do people want dts-hdma players so much? I would rather see people demand that Fox start using pcm so that EVERYONE can enjoy lossless audio NOW without having to upgrade to new players or pray for firmware updates.

Audio compression, even lossless compression, seems archaic and only necessary for hd-dvd.


EDIT:
People seem to be arguing that "in the future" saving 3 gbytes on a 50 gbyte disc will matter:
1) That's unrealistic. If you bother to look at the blu-ray bitrate list you'll see that 50 gbytes can provide excellent, tier 0, video quality with lossless audio and still have space for extras.
2) The problem of saving 3 gbytes more would only matter if the goal is to fit everything on 1 disc. Would you rather get an extra 3 gbytes of content on a 1 disc release or extra 50 gbytes of content on a 2 disc release?
3) A movie which has so much content that it begins to approach the 50 gbyte mark is likely to be released as 2 disc set


Compression is a compromise made because limitations don't allow delivery of the original uncompressed product, in this case PCM (even with lossless compression you are making a compromise with money: decoding an optional codec adds hardware costs and licensing fees to the player). PCM isn't some old backwards technology that some people are trying to portray it as, PCM is the ultimate goal of what studios are trying to deliver to you.