I am aware of how ARM works. I was not comparing things in the ARM area. Just design work in general.
Then to be clear by your standards, neither Qualcomm nor Apple nor Samsung nor any ARM chip maker designs their own chips? Qualcomm can just physically copy Samsung's chips and they would be fine with it? It's not really a new design according to you.
And Google has not made any major changes to Google Earth since buying it from Keyhole. They've iterated. Which is fine. But it's not going to change the fact that they saw it and bought it.
The release notes of Google Earth versions say otherwise. And that's not including any changes to make Google Earth as a standalone versions on Linux, OS X, and Windows platforms over time. That also doesn't include changes to accommodate newer browsers and APIs since 2001. I don't believe that Netscape Navigator is a popular web browser these days. But hey porting to different platforms and continuously updating software for 13 years doesn't count as making major changes, I ask you again: Do you consider Linux, OS X, and Windows and thus all software not 100% written from scratch as merely "iterations"?
Their market share continues to decline and they can only grow profits by increasing prices (the whole reason the iPhone X exists).
And the fact that the iPhone X has hardware that no other phone contains has nothing to do with it? Are you ignoring the part where the iPhone X has basically a miniaturized and upgraded Kinect module?
At some point the userbase will shrink to the point of margins and increased app-spend not making up the gap vs. Android OEMs.
You just above said that Apple has to rely on increasing prices. That would counter the shrinking user base you've alleged so you've proven yourself wrong. By the way the latest quarterly earnings say otherwise with 5M more sales than last year.
The iPhone 8 and 8 Plus didn't exactly set the world on fire.
And you know this how? It was released only late September and the holiday season hasn't happened yet. You've make quite a conclusion based on what? Apple hasn't released any numbers other that total sales of iPhones.
Is it because people are waiting for the iPhone X? We'll know when Q1 2018 market share data comes out.
Yes and until then everything you said is mere speculation.
Apple needs another "hook" to keep people in their ecosystem.
As goes every company selling consumer devices.
Maybe they finally make a meaningful play with a TV box or magically offer some subscription service that doesn't involve a blood tribute to every cable network exec in the world?
Unless Apple buys out all the cable networks, how would they do that? You realize that cable networks are independent of Apple, right?
Maybe they make a meaningful update to their desktops and fully unify the OS across platforms? Maybe they outright buy a supplier or two so they're not paying their enemies for parts and increase margins without increasing price?
Haven't they done that already by designing their own CPUs?
For the XBox One X, there's going to be a lot of people who did not buy an XBox One for whatever reason, and are upgrading now.
One reason would be MS had a terrible reveal and it turned off a lot of loyal gamers. Always-on broadband requirement, severely restricted used games, higher price, an included and sometimes not wanted Kinect module, etc. Eventually MS reversed many of those decisions but many people had moved on.
But it's not like the XBox One was suddenly rendered inadequate for the vast majority of people merely due to the existence of a more advanced version
In the early years, hardcore gamers had to admit that the Xbox One wasn't as powerful as the PS4 having to play some of the same titles at lower resolution than PS4 counterparts. Now with newer versions, they are finally on par with PS4 variants. The new Xboxes are offering Ultra-HD Bluray and are cheaper than new PS4s. I feel that one reason PS3 had an edge against their competitors was that they offered Bluray. At the time, the PS3 was the cheapest Bluray player you could buy (and you could play games).
Considering that they bought those designs (and eventually the companies behind them) and merely iterated on them, it would be fair to say that they don't design their own processors.
What part of that statement is true? If you say Apple doesn't design their own CPUs then no mobile company including Qualcomm designs their own CPUs.
. Certainly not to the level that AMD or Intel do.
You are aware that in the ARM area, AMD and Intel are behind Apple right in terms of actual design?
It's like saying Google made Google Earth. No, they bought it from Keyhole and iterated on it.
Your analogy would be true the day Google bought Google Earth and that they haven't made changes or updates in 13 years. If we take your logic, then no software company anywhere actually designs any software ever unless they coded every single line from scratch. That includes Linux, BSD, OS X, and Windows.
No. They said if your device is cheap and low margin, you pay this low fee. If your device is high end, you pay THIS because you have margins. Apple wants the poor people rate. Intel has an inferior product. The customers are the ones getting fucked with an Intel modem in the future.
Aren't you admitting that Qualcomm's terms are not exactly FRAND? In the case you are citing, "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory" terms does not apply to Qualcomm customers who make have more money or who design a higher quality of device. Why the hell should Qualcomm care if Huawei decides to put their chips into a $800 uber-phone or a $300 generic phone? Why should it matter to Qualcomm? FRAND terms could be based on volume with customers that buy more product get better discounts. But that's the exact opposite in Apple's case.
Please read my original point again as you've repeatedly missed my point: "MS relies on customers contacting them to complain which isn't always the case." That's why their analysis is flawed. Consumer Reports relies on the user reporting all problems regardless if the device was repaired or not over a 2 year ownership. Instead you went down a rabbithole of how people are "mad" not to repair devices. That was never the point. Your assumptions are that problems with a device ALWAYS gets reported accurately to MS because the device is sent into repair. Anyone who's dealt with RMAs knows differently. And those are only the devices that get returned; sometimes users don't turn in the devices because the problem is intermittent. Sometimes it is too much of a hassle and they live with whatever quirk. Sometimes the device is past warranty and nothing can be done about a return/refund.
No, that doesn't suggest that the pyramids were built around 10,500 BCE. If what you say is true, it suggests is that Egyptian astronomy goes back that far and that Egyptians had great astronomical charts. Also that says their surveying technology would be good enough to align structures to stars that hadn't been in position for 8,000 years.
I never said that they didn't have internal passageways. They are minuscule compared to the volume of the Great Pyramid. Here's an article discussing the latest voids Compare the volume of the chamber vs the pyramid. Most of the pyramid is solid rock with a little left over.
I'm not assuming anything other than people who don't attempt to seek out a repair for a super expensive device from the manufacture are mad
Again you are assuming. What you are assuming is that a person doesn't seek repair when a device breaks. What I'm saying is that MS might not get the direct complaint which is completely different. After all if MS is basing their reliability on what is reported to them directly. Many cases that is never the case.
That goes double for IT companies who likely have service contracts, vendors who most definitely will send it back in an attempt to recovery costs through refurbs, and triple for MS who is both vendor and manufacturer and has a high portion of direct sales for bulk purchases.
Again how many times will MS get the complaint is the issue. And when the device has passed through multiple hands, the real reason it was sent back is muddled. For obvious hardware/software failures (device won't boot, wifi doesn't work), it's easy to diagnose. For less obvious problems (touchscreen goes out randomly/software won't work right/user error, it's not easy to figure out.)
And if you're talking to a spouse a teenager or a neighbour who doesn't recommend seeking out the vendor first even if it's under warranty then I will assume the mad people are going to other mad people for mad advice.
Again you are making multiple assumptions:
1) every device is still under warranty 2) that every vendor is available 24/7 for tech support (they are not) and 3) every person has unlimited time/opportunity/willingness to go the vendor. Having to deal with tech support is the worst. I don't know about you but many people I know cringe at that idea. Often times it's passed to someone who is perceive to have more tech savvy/time. But perception may not be reality and if a device isn't essential, it doesn't get addressed.
That seems patently absurd. This is 2017, when printers are all but obsolete, for ANYTHING. Who prints photos anymore? Who prints ANYTHING anymore? Seriously, a 10" tablet does everything paper can do and more.
Have you ever heard of a term called a manual backup? Especially on a space mission. The astronauts do use tablets but they also have a printer for certain things that need to be printed (and don't require power).
It has to have occurred to anyone who's pondered the pyramids that there might be things still left hidden inside all that volume.
The problem with the design is that there is little volume in the pyramid itself as it wasn't designed that way as it is the world's largest grave markers in a way. Most of the structure is used to support it's own weight. That's a problem with using only masonry as load-bearing members. If you look at medieval castles you'd find that the interiors are much smaller than you think because the walls have to be thick. Later castles that were not used as defense but more as manors or estate homes had much larger interiors.
I always thought that the Pyramids had all the architectural genius of a pile of dirt...A large, regularly shaped pile of dirt demonstrating some limited knowledge of astronomy.
Part of architecture is the design. Part of architecture is the execution or construction. At the time, constructing them was a feat.
I wonder whether, in today's climate of tearing down statues of famous slavers and imperialists (Jackson, Rhodes etc), people would advocate tearing down the pyramids which, for all their architectural genius, were built at a cost of thousands of lives. They're like Qatari football stadia x1000.
Other than the difference that confederate statues have a much smaller footprint than the pyramids and would require lots of labor and equipment to remove. That and many statues were erected long after the Civil War to intimidate the local African-Americans.
Who do you think built the pyramids, idiot. Or did you think mohamed invented arabs when he invented allah? I wonder where the guy found all the time between his mass rape sessions.
I see someone doesn't know their Middle Eastern history. The Great Pyramid at Giza was built around 2580–2560 BCE. Arabs didn't exist in Egypt until after 600 BCE (almost 2000 years later) because Arabs are descended from the Neo-Assyrian empires that didn't conquer Egypt until then.
I think you are assuming everyone is you. Do you know how many average I know report their tech issues directly to the manufacturer? Very few. If they are corporate users, it gets reported to IT staff who may or may not pass it along to the manufacturer. If it is a corporate account, it gets passed to the vendor who then may or may not report to the manufacturer. If it's a consumer, the issue is reported to the closest person who is their "IT" staff. A spouse, a teenager, a neighbor, etc. especially if it's out of warranty. This is mainly because most people I know dealing with a manufacturer find they do very little.
Realistically, the telemetry should only have persistent problems reporting severe failures related to network, power, and storage. In all of those cases, it is reasonable to assume the user will report.
And why would the user report that to MS? Some corporate users might report it to their IT staff which then might be report to MS. Consumers might not. Many times a consumer might report the issue to their spouse/teenager who is their "IT" staff.
Now, I absolutely believe MS is cherry-picking statistics. At the same time, I'm fairly sure they have solid data and a very good idea of how widespread the problems are.
My contention is that telemetry data can only show some problems. Namely if the hardware/software fault can be logged and recorded. For example if the touchscreen starts failing, it may not register a touch properly. That isn't recorded by telemetry. If there is a network issue, does it log it cannot reach the network because the wifi chipset is failing or is that because the customer has a flaky router? Sure it can bolster other data but using it as a primary source of reliability data isn't the best use of it.
So customers are retarded? For all the problems I've had with the Surface (1 surface failure, 1 keyboard failure, 2 pen failures spread across ownship of 2 different models of SurfacePro) one consistent thing is that MS have been ultra forthcoming with RMAs and turnaround times about as fast as DHL can get the device to them.
That's if your Surface failed while it was under warranty. Consumer Reports survey was for the first 2 years regardless if the device was still under warranty or not. Standard US warranty is only 1 year for the Surface without an extended warranty.
Consumer Reports bases their numbers on surveys of Surface owners. Criteria from MS seems less reliable as feedback from telemetry and customers which is different.
What we hear from our customers, however, and from the telemetry data that our customers want to share with us, is that Surface devices have never been more reliable and with every generation we release they get increasingly so," he added.
Consumer Reports goes out of their way to contact owners and get feedback from them it seems. Yes, some don't respond. MS relies on customers contacting them to complain which isn't always the case. Also telemetry data relies on customers wanting to allow access to the data and that the data shows problems. For example if a device's wifi goes out, how will it report it has a problem with wifi?
Maybe? I use cat6 for my media boxes whenever possible so I wouldn't know. Is the problem helped by using higher grade HDMI cables? And no I don't mean Monster. I mean monoprice.com cables.
My receiver was $350 back in 2012. It sounds and works great. Not interested in spending that kind of money for a connector.
To be clear, you're not willing to spend any amount of money to fix the problem or you're not interested in replacing your receiver for any amount of money?
No, they do not. Connecting the Amazon FireTV to the receiver gives me sound just fine, but the component output won't play on the TV. Apparently there is a way to get it to downgrade to SD and see it, but what's the point in doing that?
So to clarify your specific parameters as opposed to the OP's problem. Why do you need component video? Not sure what you mean because a FireStick does not have component video. If you need component video is an HDMI to Component adapter suitable?
I have a device with HDMI output. I want video on the TV and audio on the receiver. Get it? The way I do that now is the HDMI is plugged into the TV, and the toslink output on the TV goes to the receiver for surround sound. Works great, and that's why I'll be keeping my toslink.
And why can't you plug the HDMI to the receiver and then HDMI to the TV? Seems like you have a very specific setup but haven't detailed all the parameters you require. For example are you saying that your receiver has no HDMI and you don't want to spend any money on a new receiver?
Slashdot Mirror
I am aware of how ARM works. I was not comparing things in the ARM area. Just design work in general.
Then to be clear by your standards, neither Qualcomm nor Apple nor Samsung nor any ARM chip maker designs their own chips? Qualcomm can just physically copy Samsung's chips and they would be fine with it? It's not really a new design according to you.
And Google has not made any major changes to Google Earth since buying it from Keyhole. They've iterated. Which is fine. But it's not going to change the fact that they saw it and bought it.
The release notes of Google Earth versions say otherwise. And that's not including any changes to make Google Earth as a standalone versions on Linux, OS X, and Windows platforms over time. That also doesn't include changes to accommodate newer browsers and APIs since 2001. I don't believe that Netscape Navigator is a popular web browser these days. But hey porting to different platforms and continuously updating software for 13 years doesn't count as making major changes, I ask you again: Do you consider Linux, OS X, and Windows and thus all software not 100% written from scratch as merely "iterations"?
They said it for ages and were correct for ages. Then the iPod happened. It's been stupid growth for far too long, but it's slowing.
Slowing meaning you are ignoring the latest quarterly financial reports from Apple? I'm pretty sure someday maybe you'll be right.
Their market share continues to decline and they can only grow profits by increasing prices (the whole reason the iPhone X exists).
And the fact that the iPhone X has hardware that no other phone contains has nothing to do with it? Are you ignoring the part where the iPhone X has basically a miniaturized and upgraded Kinect module?
At some point the userbase will shrink to the point of margins and increased app-spend not making up the gap vs. Android OEMs.
You just above said that Apple has to rely on increasing prices. That would counter the shrinking user base you've alleged so you've proven yourself wrong. By the way the latest quarterly earnings say otherwise with 5M more sales than last year.
The iPhone 8 and 8 Plus didn't exactly set the world on fire.
And you know this how? It was released only late September and the holiday season hasn't happened yet. You've make quite a conclusion based on what? Apple hasn't released any numbers other that total sales of iPhones.
Is it because people are waiting for the iPhone X? We'll know when Q1 2018 market share data comes out.
Yes and until then everything you said is mere speculation.
Apple needs another "hook" to keep people in their ecosystem.
As goes every company selling consumer devices.
Maybe they finally make a meaningful play with a TV box or magically offer some subscription service that doesn't involve a blood tribute to every cable network exec in the world?
Unless Apple buys out all the cable networks, how would they do that? You realize that cable networks are independent of Apple, right?
Maybe they make a meaningful update to their desktops and fully unify the OS across platforms? Maybe they outright buy a supplier or two so they're not paying their enemies for parts and increase margins without increasing price?
Haven't they done that already by designing their own CPUs?
For the XBox One X, there's going to be a lot of people who did not buy an XBox One for whatever reason, and are upgrading now.
One reason would be MS had a terrible reveal and it turned off a lot of loyal gamers. Always-on broadband requirement, severely restricted used games, higher price, an included and sometimes not wanted Kinect module, etc. Eventually MS reversed many of those decisions but many people had moved on.
But it's not like the XBox One was suddenly rendered inadequate for the vast majority of people merely due to the existence of a more advanced version
In the early years, hardcore gamers had to admit that the Xbox One wasn't as powerful as the PS4 having to play some of the same titles at lower resolution than PS4 counterparts. Now with newer versions, they are finally on par with PS4 variants. The new Xboxes are offering Ultra-HD Bluray and are cheaper than new PS4s. I feel that one reason PS3 had an edge against their competitors was that they offered Bluray. At the time, the PS3 was the cheapest Bluray player you could buy (and you could play games).
First world countries pay many, many times more than poor countries. Sounds fucking whiny. Pay up or stop fucking whining.
Windows and MS are not beholden nor agree to FRAND terms. That's the major hole in your logic.
Considering that they bought those designs (and eventually the companies behind them) and merely iterated on them, it would be fair to say that they don't design their own processors.
What part of that statement is true? If you say Apple doesn't design their own CPUs then no mobile company including Qualcomm designs their own CPUs.
. Certainly not to the level that AMD or Intel do.
You are aware that in the ARM area, AMD and Intel are behind Apple right in terms of actual design?
It's like saying Google made Google Earth. No, they bought it from Keyhole and iterated on it.
Your analogy would be true the day Google bought Google Earth and that they haven't made changes or updates in 13 years. If we take your logic, then no software company anywhere actually designs any software ever unless they coded every single line from scratch. That includes Linux, BSD, OS X, and Windows.
Haven't people said that for years? Like 20+ years?
No. They said if your device is cheap and low margin, you pay this low fee. If your device is high end, you pay THIS because you have margins. Apple wants the poor people rate. Intel has an inferior product. The customers are the ones getting fucked with an Intel modem in the future.
Aren't you admitting that Qualcomm's terms are not exactly FRAND? In the case you are citing, "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory" terms does not apply to Qualcomm customers who make have more money or who design a higher quality of device. Why the hell should Qualcomm care if Huawei decides to put their chips into a $800 uber-phone or a $300 generic phone? Why should it matter to Qualcomm? FRAND terms could be based on volume with customers that buy more product get better discounts. But that's the exact opposite in Apple's case.
Please read my original point again as you've repeatedly missed my point: "MS relies on customers contacting them to complain which isn't always the case." That's why their analysis is flawed. Consumer Reports relies on the user reporting all problems regardless if the device was repaired or not over a 2 year ownership. Instead you went down a rabbithole of how people are "mad" not to repair devices. That was never the point. Your assumptions are that problems with a device ALWAYS gets reported accurately to MS because the device is sent into repair. Anyone who's dealt with RMAs knows differently. And those are only the devices that get returned; sometimes users don't turn in the devices because the problem is intermittent. Sometimes it is too much of a hassle and they live with whatever quirk. Sometimes the device is past warranty and nothing can be done about a return/refund.
No, that doesn't suggest that the pyramids were built around 10,500 BCE. If what you say is true, it suggests is that Egyptian astronomy goes back that far and that Egyptians had great astronomical charts. Also that says their surveying technology would be good enough to align structures to stars that hadn't been in position for 8,000 years.
I never said that they didn't have internal passageways. They are minuscule compared to the volume of the Great Pyramid. Here's an article discussing the latest voids Compare the volume of the chamber vs the pyramid. Most of the pyramid is solid rock with a little left over.
I'm not assuming anything other than people who don't attempt to seek out a repair for a super expensive device from the manufacture are mad
Again you are assuming. What you are assuming is that a person doesn't seek repair when a device breaks. What I'm saying is that MS might not get the direct complaint which is completely different. After all if MS is basing their reliability on what is reported to them directly. Many cases that is never the case.
That goes double for IT companies who likely have service contracts, vendors who most definitely will send it back in an attempt to recovery costs through refurbs, and triple for MS who is both vendor and manufacturer and has a high portion of direct sales for bulk purchases.
Again how many times will MS get the complaint is the issue. And when the device has passed through multiple hands, the real reason it was sent back is muddled. For obvious hardware/software failures (device won't boot, wifi doesn't work), it's easy to diagnose. For less obvious problems (touchscreen goes out randomly/software won't work right/user error, it's not easy to figure out.)
And if you're talking to a spouse a teenager or a neighbour who doesn't recommend seeking out the vendor first even if it's under warranty then I will assume the mad people are going to other mad people for mad advice.
Again you are making multiple assumptions: 1) every device is still under warranty 2) that every vendor is available 24/7 for tech support (they are not) and 3) every person has unlimited time/opportunity/willingness to go the vendor. Having to deal with tech support is the worst. I don't know about you but many people I know cringe at that idea. Often times it's passed to someone who is perceive to have more tech savvy/time. But perception may not be reality and if a device isn't essential, it doesn't get addressed.
My opinion is that Qualcomm is trying to send a message to all their customers: "Don't try to replace us in any way; we'll sue you."
That seems patently absurd. This is 2017, when printers are all but obsolete, for ANYTHING. Who prints photos anymore? Who prints ANYTHING anymore? Seriously, a 10" tablet does everything paper can do and more.
Have you ever heard of a term called a manual backup? Especially on a space mission. The astronauts do use tablets but they also have a printer for certain things that need to be printed (and don't require power).
It has to have occurred to anyone who's pondered the pyramids that there might be things still left hidden inside all that volume.
The problem with the design is that there is little volume in the pyramid itself as it wasn't designed that way as it is the world's largest grave markers in a way. Most of the structure is used to support it's own weight. That's a problem with using only masonry as load-bearing members. If you look at medieval castles you'd find that the interiors are much smaller than you think because the walls have to be thick. Later castles that were not used as defense but more as manors or estate homes had much larger interiors.
I always thought that the Pyramids had all the architectural genius of a pile of dirt .. .A large, regularly shaped pile of dirt demonstrating some limited knowledge of astronomy.
Part of architecture is the design. Part of architecture is the execution or construction. At the time, constructing them was a feat.
I wonder whether, in today's climate of tearing down statues of famous slavers and imperialists (Jackson, Rhodes etc), people would advocate tearing down the pyramids which, for all their architectural genius, were built at a cost of thousands of lives. They're like Qatari football stadia x1000.
Other than the difference that confederate statues have a much smaller footprint than the pyramids and would require lots of labor and equipment to remove. That and many statues were erected long after the Civil War to intimidate the local African-Americans.
Who do you think built the pyramids, idiot. Or did you think mohamed invented arabs when he invented allah? I wonder where the guy found all the time between his mass rape sessions.
I see someone doesn't know their Middle Eastern history. The Great Pyramid at Giza was built around 2580–2560 BCE. Arabs didn't exist in Egypt until after 600 BCE (almost 2000 years later) because Arabs are descended from the Neo-Assyrian empires that didn't conquer Egypt until then.
I think you are assuming everyone is you. Do you know how many average I know report their tech issues directly to the manufacturer? Very few. If they are corporate users, it gets reported to IT staff who may or may not pass it along to the manufacturer. If it is a corporate account, it gets passed to the vendor who then may or may not report to the manufacturer. If it's a consumer, the issue is reported to the closest person who is their "IT" staff. A spouse, a teenager, a neighbor, etc. especially if it's out of warranty. This is mainly because most people I know dealing with a manufacturer find they do very little.
Realistically, the telemetry should only have persistent problems reporting severe failures related to network, power, and storage. In all of those cases, it is reasonable to assume the user will report.
And why would the user report that to MS? Some corporate users might report it to their IT staff which then might be report to MS. Consumers might not. Many times a consumer might report the issue to their spouse/teenager who is their "IT" staff.
Now, I absolutely believe MS is cherry-picking statistics. At the same time, I'm fairly sure they have solid data and a very good idea of how widespread the problems are.
My contention is that telemetry data can only show some problems. Namely if the hardware/software fault can be logged and recorded. For example if the touchscreen starts failing, it may not register a touch properly. That isn't recorded by telemetry. If there is a network issue, does it log it cannot reach the network because the wifi chipset is failing or is that because the customer has a flaky router? Sure it can bolster other data but using it as a primary source of reliability data isn't the best use of it.
So customers are retarded? For all the problems I've had with the Surface (1 surface failure, 1 keyboard failure, 2 pen failures spread across ownship of 2 different models of SurfacePro) one consistent thing is that MS have been ultra forthcoming with RMAs and turnaround times about as fast as DHL can get the device to them.
That's if your Surface failed while it was under warranty. Consumer Reports survey was for the first 2 years regardless if the device was still under warranty or not. Standard US warranty is only 1 year for the Surface without an extended warranty.
Consumer Reports bases their numbers on surveys of Surface owners. Criteria from MS seems less reliable as feedback from telemetry and customers which is different.
What we hear from our customers, however, and from the telemetry data that our customers want to share with us, is that Surface devices have never been more reliable and with every generation we release they get increasingly so," he added.
Consumer Reports goes out of their way to contact owners and get feedback from them it seems. Yes, some don't respond. MS relies on customers contacting them to complain which isn't always the case. Also telemetry data relies on customers wanting to allow access to the data and that the data shows problems. For example if a device's wifi goes out, how will it report it has a problem with wifi?
What about the HDMI to Component adapter I linked above? It's about $50.
Maybe? I use cat6 for my media boxes whenever possible so I wouldn't know. Is the problem helped by using higher grade HDMI cables? And no I don't mean Monster. I mean monoprice.com cables.
What kind of video inputs and outputs does your receiver have? I assume you have component out to your TV. What about video inputs? Any component in?
My receiver was $350 back in 2012. It sounds and works great. Not interested in spending that kind of money for a connector.
To be clear, you're not willing to spend any amount of money to fix the problem or you're not interested in replacing your receiver for any amount of money?
No, they do not. Connecting the Amazon FireTV to the receiver gives me sound just fine, but the component output won't play on the TV. Apparently there is a way to get it to downgrade to SD and see it, but what's the point in doing that?
So to clarify your specific parameters as opposed to the OP's problem. Why do you need component video? Not sure what you mean because a FireStick does not have component video. If you need component video is an HDMI to Component adapter suitable?
I have a device with HDMI output. I want video on the TV and audio on the receiver. Get it? The way I do that now is the HDMI is plugged into the TV, and the toslink output on the TV goes to the receiver for surround sound. Works great, and that's why I'll be keeping my toslink.
And why can't you plug the HDMI to the receiver and then HDMI to the TV? Seems like you have a very specific setup but haven't detailed all the parameters you require. For example are you saying that your receiver has no HDMI and you don't want to spend any money on a new receiver?