Why, even though the discs are exactly the same size, do DVDs come in such larger packages than CDs? The answer, as supplied here, is that vinyl records came in tightly shrink-wrapped sleeves, 302 mm square. If one made the CD package a little less than half that size, one could fit two CDs in the racks that countless record stores had installed. The height could be kept the same, which is why you may remember CD jewel cases themselves used to wrapped with all kinds of surplus packaging, strange cousins of vinyl sleeves that were to be ripped away and discarded. DVDs, meanwhile, were riding in the wake of the VHS tape, which came in a 191 mm-high box. Keeping DVD cases the same height meant retailers (and consumers) could simply stack DVDs on their VHS shelves. One does wonder if some brave designer, some Howard Roark of the blister-pack set, stood up in an early meeting and asked if the cost of the excess packaging was indeed greater than the cost of retrofitting shelves. It could also be that Hollywood was leery of people thinking they were getting "less" for their money.

To take a stab at your last question, I think the implication of the high-end "simple" item, such as the stereo, is that what you are paying for is the high quality of whatever the item was intended to do in its purest form--in that case, sound. But from a packaging perspective I do think there's more going on. I think that consumer modernism has become associated with elite products (and with "good taste"). The more you pay for a hotel room, the sleeker it will be; high-end packaging often has stripped-down design; cheap kitchen products have tens of attachments, expensive ones are heavy, single-tasked and efficient. I find it truly ironic that the Modernist movement which was meant to bring efficiency in design to all people, has resulted in a surface aesthetic for the elite.