And obviously if the number of fake chips was very, very small, FTDI would not attempt these shenanigans.
You've completely ignored my point: The one who is being punished, end user buying the product has no way of determining the authenticity before they buy it and also after they buy it (without a destructive firmware test).
There seems to be a real inability by some to acknowledge that the people most adversely affected by FTDI's actions are those who have no way to avoid the problem other than try to buy products that use chips from other manufacturers- that is assuming they are even sophisticated enough to know how to determine that.
QuoteSome bad FETs may overheat and catch fire. We still don't blame the fire for making the device inoperative. We blame the supply chain that gave us the fakeStrawman. No one would blame FTDI if fake chips were catching on fire.
Morals aside, who here would design a product with a component (any component) known to be on the counterfeit market when alternatives (from alternate manufacturers or by way of a design change) exist?
I avoid components that have a known counterfeit on the market, it's beneficial to my customers.
Try talking this over with a customer, tell them you want the design that contains a part that is currently being counterfeit. They will say give me another option.
This is the reality of the market, I do feel sympathy and even understand where they are coming from but I will not risk a customers design because of the issue.
I don't buy it that they are victims, they are purchasing the cheapest offerings on purpose, so it's their fault for promoting unfair competition and theft.
People who buy inexpensive things are "promoting unfair competition and theft"? What's your cutoff price where one transitions from promoting theft to being an honest buyer?
That labeling of people that don't share your opinion
cancels everything you are saying because you are not being objective.
Buy go ahead and promote piracy all you want.
The message that comes across from you, even if you have mentioned many times that you are against counterfeit products is that you are indeed blaming companies that are trying to do something about it.
Morals aside, who here would design a product with a component (any component) known to be on the counterfeit market when alternatives (from alternate manufacturers or by way of a design change) exist?
I avoid components that have a known counterfeit on the market, it's beneficial to my customers.
Try talking this over with a customer, tell them you want the design that contains a part that is currently being counterfeit. They will say give me another option.
This is the reality of the market, I do feel sympathy and even understand where they are coming from but I will not risk a customers design because of the issue.
That is a valid risk mitigation strategy, but comes with an associated design/redesign cost. Every time one of your components starts to be counterfeit, you have to do the R&D to identify and test a replacement.
I choose to rely on the safety of my historically proven supply channels. (Digikey, for example) to make sure I never receive fakes. It's higher risk, by some small measure, but it's lower development costs, as I don't need to redesign my products just because a component starts to enter the black market.
- Minimizing fakes is just a matter of knowing and trusting your sources, not an issue for any normal design unless you spec out an out of production device. So no arguments on that one.
- Once designed there is no real issue. You don't pull a product unless you have actually installed a part that will or is causing issues.
- My original statements refer to original design or as part of an upgrade that is already taking place.
There's only 0.01% counterfeit currency in circulation. Yet there what like 6 tiers of anti-counterfeit technology built into our bills now?
Because it's hard to detect fakes we shouldn't bother to do something about it?
I have a way. Buy from real vendors. You pay more money for the insurance you are getting real products. Personally, 5 figures worth of units and no fakes. I have yet to see an example of Digikey selling counterfeit FTDIs. And if they did, I be dam sure they replace the fake stock at no cost.
...
What the FTDI apologists continue to ignore ...
That labeling of people that don't share your opinion cancels everything you are saying because you are not being objective.
That labeling of people that don't share your opinionit's a descriptive term. I'm open to suggestions for an equally concise term to refer to those who try and justify FTDI's actions
Quotecancels everything you are saying because you are not being objective.a convenient way to dodge the issues I raise.
What the FTDI apologists continue to ignore is the fact that consumers have no way of knowing the product has a fake FTDI chip in it beforehand and are being harmed by FTDIs tactics if it does. This is causing the people who make the choice of what chip to use in their product - choose other chips. FTDI claims to be targeting the cloners but continues to shoot themselves in the foot.
Let's be clear about what the driver does and doesn't, your PC sends characters and the driver echoes the "NON GENUINE DEVICE FOUND!" character by character as you try to communicate with the device.
Even if the device receives those strings it would be a pretty poorly designed protocol that blindly accepts anything without initialization and exchanging some initialization handshakes to make sure the device is communicating with the appropriate piece of software running on the PC, otherwise any other program can hijack the COM port and create havoc.
I think it's a valid implementation from FTDI part to protect their hard work.
Claiming that a lot of devices are affected by this? well then they should return them to whoever was careless enough to use fakes, and I don't buy it that they are victims, they are purchasing the cheapest offerings on purpose, so it's their fault for promoting unfair competition and theft.
What if you buy an expensive piece of kit, you check it and it has Rubycon caps on the power supply so you feel really good about it, but they happen to be fake and shortly after a year and your warranty expiring, they start leaking. Who are you going to blame?
QuoteBuy go ahead and promote piracy all you want.Strawman. I've seen no one justifying piracy. The issue being discussed is what is the appropriate response to piracy? Who's not being objective here?
QuoteThe message that comes across from you, even if you have mentioned many times that you are against counterfeit products is that you are indeed blaming companies that are trying to do something about it.No, what I am saying is that FTDI's tactics have been misguided and self destructive. I think what these responses by them show (including their response to Dave on Twitter) is that this area of their business is failing. The reason likely has little to do with the clones but instead is largely due to the availability of better alternatives as you yourself and others here have pointed out. If I was an investor in FTDI, I would take these episodes to be a sign to get out.
That's fine. But dumping trash data or frying chips are not fine.
And making counterfeit chips or otherwise ripping off FTDI's IP is fine? Maybe in China, but not where I'm from.
Sure, FTDI took the nuclear option here, but I think they're completely justified in doing so.
Cloning die is a big no go. Cloning protocol, as long as it was not patented, is fine at least in China. But you CAN NOT put FTDI logo on the chip, of course.
The SCPA permits competitive emulation of a chip by means of reverse engineering.
that is required for interoperability is legal, a VID:PID pair is likely to be as well. Even if FTDI tried to twist it into some sort of trademark protection by e.g. making the chip respond with "this is a genuine FTDI device", that probably won't work either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
Huh, it's more than a descriptive term and obviously not taken at random, do not insult also my intelligence and comprehension of the human factor.
I mean, "Apologist" on your use it's a combination of defender and apologizing on someone else's behalf
with a demeaning connotation touch to it.
I think it's a valid implementation from FTDI part to protect their hard work.
whoever was careless enough to use fakes, and I don't buy it that they are victims, they are purchasing the cheapest offerings on purpose, so it's their fault for promoting unfair competition and theft.
Hmm Strawman... is that you Mojo? he used it a lot.
kidding aside, look at what you didn't quote me on, I did address that I think (In My Opinion, to be clear) that FTDI did the right thing and their response on their second approach is a good response to the issue at hand.
No, what I am saying is that FTDI's tactics have been misguided and self destructive. I think what these responses by them show (including their response to Dave on Twitter) is that this area of their business is failing. The reason likely has little to do with the clones but instead is largely due to the availability of better alternatives as you yourself and others here have pointed out. If I was an investor in FTDI, I would take these episodes to be a sign to get out.
Yup, their first approach was harsh and they did deserve the heat.
That's fine. But dumping trash data or frying chips are not fine.
I would like to know if anyone thinks here that what they are doing here is anything more than just a personal vendetta...
By that i mean, the non genuine string (and even the bricking stuff) will not make cloners abbandon the market, it will only prompt them at better emulating the real FTDI ic's to pass the f****in check, and even if it did, what would it bring in FTDI's bank account
Has anybody here purchased any FTDI device from a legitimate distributor in the last, say, 6 months and received a fake?
That's fine. But dumping trash data or frying chips are not fine.
That's your opinion and the opinion of some others, mostly hobbyists who got burned by buying cheap (Chinese) products.
In a professional environment, this plays no role, apart from the fact that you have to check your sources, but a professional
already did that.
Aim your anger to the counterfeiters, not to a a company that tries to protect their investment by not supporting
counterfeit chips with their driver. There's nothing wrong with sending the string "this is not a genuine chip" when counterfeit
is detected.
I just got an evaluation board from NXP (PNEV512B) which contains an FTDI FT232RQ device. Guess what? VID is 0. Thanks to FTDI and NXP I lost an hour of my life.
QuoteHas anybody here purchased any FTDI device from a legitimate distributor in the last, say, 6 months and received a fake?Does anyone have an Arduino Nano that doesn't have a counterfeit FTDI? There were hints that even the original (Gravitech-manufactured) boards might have had fakes - people who had bought full-price Nanos from trusted distributors were getting their chips bricked back in 2014...
That's fine. But dumping trash data or frying chips are not fine.
That's your opinion and the opinion of some others, mostly hobbyists who got burned by buying cheap (Chinese) products.
In a professional environment, this plays no role, apart from the fact that you have to check your sources, but a professional
already did that.
It's entertaining to watch the FTDI apologists twist and turn to justify FTDI's tactics.
The bottom line remains the same: People who unknowingly bought products with fake FTDI chips are being harmed and FTDI's actions are alienating their own customers.
They are being outdone by other companies with competing products and their actions regarding clones, whether justified or not, are only exacerbating migration of their customers to those alternatives as well as generating a feeling of ill will towards the FTDI brand.