I'll go along with this one. For one thing, I would think that we'd get rid of s-video before composite - simply because the number of devices with s-video that don't also have component video are pretty small. My S-VHS VCR from 1995 and my SMS-1 are the only two I have that fall in this category, and the SMS-1 would work equally well via composite as via s-video. There's also LaserDisc, of course, and some older game consoles (Dreamcast, for example). There's even a precedent - the pictures from CEDIA showed that OPPO's Blu-ray player will retain composite video but omit s-video. As a result, I figured that we'd see the s-video connections follow the composite video connections into oblivion (if they didn't get eliminated first), making the converters you mentioned not terribly useful.

Just to play with the "devil's advocate" perspective a bit more, here's another scenario. We still have analog audio inputs, since both the turntable and the VCR need it. We have to decide whether to drop a phono preamp or composite video inputs, but s-video inputs will stay no matter what (looking out for those LaserDisc players). If we include a phono preamp, it will not be as good a quality as a separate phono preamp, so the owner may still elect to put a standalone phono preamp in the system. The VCR is not S-VHS, so composite is the best we have. The surround processor can pipe composite video and s-video straight into the video processor, where it gets deinterlaced, converted to digital for HDMI output, and possibly scaled to an HD resolution. If we keep the composite input, it's a straight shot into the video processor (and thus the "best" picture quality possible). If we drop the composite input, we need to find an adapter that converts to s-video. Can we assume that a composite to s-video adapter provides transcoding without image degradation? Probably not, as this process is not simply changing plugs - s-video splits the picture out into two signals, and if that split is not handled right you may get visible artifacts. If we eliminate the phono preamp, the alternative will most likely be of better audio quality. If we eliminate the composite input, the alternative will most likely be of worse quality and could certainly not do more than equal the quality. One could argue that those video artifacts are not enough justification to retain the inputs, because nobody in their right mind should even be using composite in this day and age, but that gets back to the idea of whether a manufacturer is being rude to their customer base or not. (How's that for coming full circle! )