Yes, as others have pointed out the cost to include the tuner section is minimal at best so most manufacturers keep it in there to increase the "feature set" of the product. However, obviously $20 worth of electronics is not going to perform as well as an expensive audiophile tuner for critical listening (although the performance for the price of the "simple" tuning circuits can be quite impressive considering their cost). Therefore, if you want to get the best audio from tuner sources a dedidcated tuner (and quality antennas) is still the way to go.
At a time where the iPod generation has taken over and compressed audio is (incorrectly) confused with audiophile audio (ouch!) and has been accepted in the dumbing down of quality sound, fewer people are showing discernment for good sound. I find it ironic that on one hand we are in a golden age of digital sound with advanced HD Audio codecs rivaling analog sound with high sample rates, while at the same time living in a compressed audio world where 192bps sound is considered "good" by the masses. Just because it sounds better than the old handheld radios doesn't mean it's good. And the same thing goes for video. At the same time that we talk about 1080p video, 14 bit color, 120-240Hz refresh rates, etc. we are living in a world where a significant number of people are watching their videos on YouTube or postage stamp sized portable devices. While I understand that technology will always improve (always at a surpising rate) the "old guy" in me still rails against iPod sound being "acceptable" and now I add to that compressed video.
It's the dumbing down of HT (both audio and video) and the sacrificing of quality for convenience, in my opinion. True, "good enough" is the driving force here, but standards seem to be going by the wayside and I, for one, don't like the trend.