# No HDHomeRun Prime 6 This Year



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

This comes as not much of a surprise. The statement "Coming in 2019" has been removed from the product page and this statement from SiliconDust appears:

"To our customers and anxious fans of the HDHomeRun PRIME model and the upcoming 6 tuner version HDHomeRun PRIME6

When we launched the original PRIME 3-tuner model, there were years of development, testing, tweaking and certifications. No one knew of this because it was just released, and the units are still working today ("HDHomeRun devices just work").

We are still very excited as we plan and develop the updated generation, adding full CableCARD support of 6 simultaneous programs. We had been premature on a few occasions in announcing this product creating expectations from our fans (and the occasional dramatic naysayers).

There have been chipsets that were sold off and killed in the middle of our dev (twice). And delays due to normal development that many don't know nor deem relevant beyond "just give me my PRIME!" and we respect and love that passion.

I want to assure all of our customers and fans that we are still deep in development of the upcoming PRIME6 and we will announce only when the time is right and when we are in mass production. There will be no casual updates or dart board dates to appease the masses. A lot goes into developing new hardware, and as I have said before, "if this one was easy, everyone would have one on the market."

All of us at Silicondust want an HDHomeRun PRIME6 in our homes as much as our supporters. Keep watch and sign up for our mailing list, or follow us on social media so that you'll be the first to know when we are ready to release more information.

Sincerely,

Theodore Head
CEO/President"


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Sad but not unexpected.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

I was looking forward to trying one these. Now I guess I’ll have to get a old Prime on eBay for a jacked up price since you cannot buy one new anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

> We had been premature on a few occasions in announcing this product creating expectations from our fans (and the occasional dramatic naysayers).


You don't say. The dramatic naysaying is very well deserved.



> "if this one was easy, everyone would have one on the market."


Apparently it's not that difficult since your competition did it *6 YEARS AGO!* I had a Ceton InfiniTV 6 for years.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Is jafa still involved with Silicon Dust? Curious how the AZ plans line up. 

BTW if you google Theodore Head there’s some funny NSFW stuff (don’t google at work!)


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

mdavej said:


> Apparently it's not that difficult since your competition did it *6 YEARS AGO!* I had a Ceton InfiniTV 6 for years.


For protected path required content, that (Ceton) device was essentially just for WMC, as was the original Prime. WMC is essentially dead. If the only requirement was to support a dead product, then I would guess a Prime 6 could probably have been released. But SiliconDust decided to offer a replacement for WMC, their own recorder and display apps for protected content, and while they do have display apps for "live TV", they have not yet completed the recording part. And *that* is really hard to pass certification and approval (Microsoft probably spent hundreds of millions to both develop and ensure that the protected path was maintained with each and every patch). And if SiliconDust can't complete the support for protected path required content recording, there are likely few reasons to release a Prime 6 (as only a few MSOs provide most content with copy-freely set, and the biggest is slowly, but quite deliberately, moving towards IPTV for their own service, and the other large one is slowly pushing people to YTTV). As I recall (from the limited public documents, many are behind a paywall), one of the potential issues is that while DLTA approves DTLS for data in transport, DTLS is not approved for data at rest (and a DVR has to be able to store data at rest). There are certainly workarounds, but nothing is ever as simple as it seems when crypto (and certification agencies) is involved. Also note that if SiliconDust gets the entire protected content path recording and playback wrong, there are potential fines in the tens of millions of dollars, so they really really have to get it right (which further raises the bar).


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

We’re only talking about 6 tuners versus 3.


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

They probably couldn't manufacture the 3-tuner version again if they wanted to. Some chips and components may be no longer available, and often you just can't find simple swap-in substitutes.


heyted said:


> There have been chipsets that were sold off and killed in the middle of our dev (twice).


That can force you to discard a whole previous year's development cycle and start over. I'm having bad flashbacks...


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

mdavej said:


> We're only talking about 6 tuners versus 3.


Right. But arguably why release such a product if you are going to essentially exit the cable tuner market because there is no future in that market as so few people will want to purchase (and ongoing development and support costs money that can only be amortized to values you are willing to pay with many many many people purchasing the device)? Instead, as a company (trying to survive), you would focus on the products that have a future, or (try to) pivot to something else entirely. Ford could have continued to improve and sell the Taurus forever, but so few wanted it, it was not a viable market to continue.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> They probably couldn't manufacture the 3-tuner version again if they wanted to. Some chips and components may be no longer available, and often you just can't find simple swap-in substitute.


Yep, that is what happened. And note that in this particular environment, if the subs are not (essentially) identical you often have to go through the entire approval process again. It makes no sense to go there. The (never stated, but implied) suggestion was that when the manufacturer asked for last orders, SiliconDust made an order to support what they thought would be a "last batch" before their next gen products could come to market. That next gen got delayed, repeatedly.... So, no (new) Prime for You! [no new stock has, interestingly, raised the prices on the new-to-you market to near original retail, or, in some cases, I have seen more than retail (supply, meet demand)].


> That can force you to discard a whole previous year's development cycle and start over. I'm having bad flashbacks...


Again, Yep (and I feel your pain, and have experienced those bad times). From the reading between the line rumors, for the Prime 4 (transcoder) the first announced improvement, Zenverge chips were oversold to the "big boys", and then the company disappeared (well, it got bought by Freescale, which then got (almost immediately) bought by NXP, and then the entire product line disappeared). And then there was choice of some chip in the next design (I am thinking tuner/demod, but it could have been something else) where the manufacturing company also discontinued the chosen chip. The really big companies can insist on long term supply, but the smaller ones have no such leverage because they cannot commit to large quantities (and SiliconDust is not going to be buying millions and millions of chips).


----------



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> heyted said...


Clarification: heyted didn't say it. Theodore Head said it.


----------



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

There have been requests on the SiliconDust forums asking them to just get CableLabs certification and just have it work with new Windows software, but it appears they are intent on having it work with a large number of devices.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

heyted said:


> There have been requests on the SiliconDust forums asking them to just get CableLabs certification and just have it work with new Windows software, but it appears they are intent on having it work with a large number of devices.


I can certainly understand the requests, given the lack of alternatives right now, but as W7 is (around) two months from end of support, and not a lot of people installed (and stayed) on W8.1 and purchased the pro media center license, what is the volume of the latent demand? Are you aware of anyone actually willing to pay (either directly, or by committing to a purchase of a few tens of thousands of units) for the (extra) certification submission and review process that they are requesting (historically, the certifications is going to be a high five or perhaps even six figure process) along with ongoing support costs? It is easy to make those requests when spending someone else's money, but the requests have tended to disappear if one is asked to show how much they are willing to commit to make it happen (it is like the people here who want TE3 on the Edge; I suspect TiVo *could* do it (they have some good engineers), but it would cost TiVo a lot of money both to do the development, and continue support, and no one has yet (at least publicly) stepped up with the check). Sadly, not everything we might want has a legitimate business case moving forward (and unlike Uber, most companies can't keep losing $4 billion dollars a year and make it up in volume).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

By the time is released CableCARD is going to be on the way out. Surprised they're putting so much time/effort into R&D.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> By the time is released CableCARD is going to be on the way out. Surprised they're putting so much time/effort into R&D.


While it is clear some MSOs will move out of CableCARDs sooner rather than later (some (of the smaller) have ended their linear QAM TV offering already, others are only offering newer content via IPTV, and one is trying to suggest YTTV is the best way forward), there are others for which it is going to be a longer slog. A market opportunity for even a few years during the transitions might be worth pursuing. But a post linear TV QAM world is clearly something any company needs to be considering (and that includes TiVo).


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Weird to hear we're not getting something this year that you thought was dead 5 years ago. 

Are we not getting 3d tvs this year too?  sorry just poking fun.


----------



## jadziedzic (Apr 20, 2009)

Out of curiosity, what is a used HD HomeRun Prime 3-tuner CableCARD unit worth these days?


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

jadziedzic said:


> Out of curiosity, what is a used HD HomeRun Prime 3-tuner CableCARD unit worth these days?


They are going for $200-$300 on eBay right now. I lucked out and bought two of them on the Offer Up app for $150.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Wow. Time to sell mine.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

mdavej said:


> Wow. Time to sell mine.


If you cut the cord and have no use for them then yeah sell'em.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> There are certainly workarounds, but nothing is ever as simple as it seems when crypto (and certification agencies) is involved. Also note that if SiliconDust gets the entire protected content path recording and playback wrong, there are potential fines in the tens of millions of dollars, so they really really have to get it right (which further raises the bar).


It's sad that all the copy flag BS got pushed into CableCard, and that several cable companies abuse the copy flagging, and don't push back against channels that do use it. Of course you still need the encryption coming into the CableCard itself to work.

CableCard is pretty much dead at this point, since QAM and the concept of linear TV itself are both dying.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's sad that all the copy flag BS got pushed into CableCard, and that several cable companies abuse the copy flagging, and don't push back against channels that do use it. Of course you still need the encryption coming into the CableCard itself to work.
> 
> CableCard is pretty much dead at this point, since QAM and the concept of linear TV itself are both dying.


Glad I have fios right now. It looks like only fox channels have the flag set and not the local fox which is the only fox channel I want to record anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tazzmission said:


> Glad I have fios right now. It looks like only fox channels have the flag set and not the local fox which is the only fox channel I want to record anyway.


They can't legally set it on local channels. Cable companies can abuse it on cable channels, as it is designed to only be for premiums, which I believe is how Comcast does it.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They can't legally set it on local channels.


Actually, according to some communications lawyers, there is a section of the FCC regulations that indicates they probably could be, if the cable companie is paying retransmission consent fees (and for most channels that most people care about they are). However, tracking which OTA channels are under what current contract, given that the OTAs are otherwise FTA, is likely not worth the effort (which will also require lawyer time to get the formal finding) until/unless the various efforts to split the OTAs as part of the basic basic subscription package takes hold. The wonderful part regarding FCC regs is that there are so many regs with slightly different priorities and interpretations.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> Actually, according to some communications lawyers, there is a section of the FCC regulations that indicates they probably could be, if the cable companie is paying retransmission consent fees (and for most channels that most people care about they are). However, tracking which OTA channels are under what current contract, given that the OTAs are otherwise FTA, is likely not worth the effort (which will also require lawyer time to get the formal finding) until/unless the various efforts to split the OTAs as part of the basic basic subscription package takes hold. The wonderful part regarding FCC regs is that there are so many regs with slightly different priorities and interpretations.


Interesting interpretation. Not sure what incentive the channels would have though, considering that the same feed is available with no DRM at all OTA.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Not sure what incentive the channels would have though, considering that the same feed is available with no DRM at all OTA.


Well, cable company, not the broadcasters, but perhaps to ensure that people cannot obtain TV without paying (while it is less common these days (at least for the majors), it used to be quite common that people could get "free" basic TV with their paid cable Internet service (some were even so proud of their getting away with larceny they posted to social media under their real names) because the channel(s) were sent in clear QAM (not even a CableCARD required), or were able to share content to their 100 closest friends (sharing their service)). Realistically it (copy protecting the OTAs) is more trouble than it is worth as long as every TV subscription must include the OTAs per most local franchise agreements (should that requirement change (and lots of people want to unbundle the OTAs to eliminate having to pay for the broadcasters retransmission consent fees when they *can* get an OTA signal), who knows).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> Well, cable company, not the broadcasters, but perhaps to ensure that people cannot obtain TV without paying (while it is less common these days (at least for the majors), it used to be quite common that people could get "free" basic TV with their paid cable Internet service (some were even so proud of their getting away with larceny they posted to social media under their real names) because the channel(s) were sent in clear QAM (not even a CableCARD required), or were able to share content to their 100 closest friends (sharing their service)). Realistically it (copy protecting the OTAs) is more trouble than it is worth as long as every TV subscription must include the OTAs per most local franchise agreements (should that requirement change (and lots of people want to unbundle the OTAs to eliminate having to pay for the broadcasters retransmission consent fees when they *can* get an OTA signal), who knows).


You're conflating copy flag with encrypted QAM. Comcast and others have fully encrypted, but only use copy flags when they are absolutely required by contract (a few premium channels do). We were talking about copy flags. There is no good reason to put copy flags on local channels. Encrypting QAM made sense when cable companies actually made money on basic cable, I would argue that it makes no sense today since they're not really making money on basic cable so there's no harm in letting people "steal" them. When Comcast went all-encrypted, what really irritated me is that they didn't leave a single QAM in the clear. They should have left QVC or one of the Jesus channels, as it would help a lot for troubleshooting CableCard devices.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I have an older HD HomeRun Prime 3 I haven’t used in years. Maybe I should sell it since it's an appreciating asset.


----------

