While I wholeheathedly agree with Pete Meyer's decision, I think that the arguments put forward won't seem very convincing to someone who's only experienced digital photography.
For instance, I hink that the removal of aa-filtering coupled with better "digital" lenses is the most important development in digital cameras. Instead of mandatory blur, you get the option to apply your own level of noise reduction and sharpness. Tools like DxO Optics are excellent for this. The draw-back is that many consumers won't invest in lenses that are good enough for, say, a 36Mp sensor with no aa.
I think one of the major advantages of film, which digital can't match is the 3-dimensional effect caused by the emulsion layers. This is actually visible even to non-photographers. When people with no interest in photography see my images captured on film, they often comment on the depth effect.
The main way to increase depth in a digital image is to increase contrast. But that also kills the tones to some degree. With film you can have both.
This is especially true of colour film, I think. While it's possible to mock the look of B&W film digitally to a reasonable degree, I have yet to see a convincing colour film mock-up on digital.
