Author Topic: FTDIgate 2.0?  (Read 229953 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 733
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #400 on: February 04, 2016, 10:36:17 am »
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.

In this particular case these bogus chips must have had the FTDI logo on them because everyone's saying that even legitimate distributors haven't been able to tell the good chips from the bad.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #401 on: February 04, 2016, 10:37:02 am »
Quote
the government suddenly had a widespread policy of seizing and not replacing a large number of average peoples cash that would be similarly wrongheaded and self-destructive.

So, France and Italy are suddenly no longer the utopia you had wanted for you and your family?

Welcome to reality.

:)
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10701
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #402 on: February 04, 2016, 10:39:35 am »
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.

In this particular case these bogus chips must have had the FTDI logo on them because everyone's saying that even legitimate distributors haven't been able to tell the good chips from the bad.

Then sue the company, but do not fry innocent users' device or screw up with their data.
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 733
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #403 on: February 04, 2016, 10:43:56 am »
This. Refuse to load the driver and print a message to the system log, but don't spew trash data out and don't brick the chips. This isn't hard to understand...

What isn't too hard to understand is that we've become an entitlement society where nothing is our fault or our problem and that someone else should foot the bill for these screw ups. The marketplace is rife with this. The only reason counterfeit Rolex watches, Gucci handbags, Prada shoes, and cable TV pirate boxes exist is because there's a ready market for them (and don't try to tell me that anyone who's offered a "Rolex" for $50 has the slightest inkling that it's genuine).
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #404 on: February 04, 2016, 10:51:38 am »

Again No one responded yet about purchasing the fake Art Of Electronics 3rd edition or forcing the authors to bring the price down to the same cost as the counterfeiters.


That is entirely different.

If Horowitz and Hill were breaking into peoples homes and burning or defacing the copies people had unknowingly bought - then that might be analogous.

No one here has been defending the cloners. The issue is the way FTDI is responding.

Not different, consumers don't know they are buying a fake, and hurts the reputation of the authors when it's not the real thing. The only difference is that they can't do much about it other than to spread the word like they did by sending Dave the counterfeit book.

On FTDI,
The driver just refuses to talk to the device and informs you that the device is a counterfeit. What more do you want? That's far from breaking some equipment.

The only thing I hear is speculation that it might. But since it hasn't happen for the last 7 months to this date, I guess it's just that, speculation.

 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #405 on: February 04, 2016, 11:01:01 am »
Ok, sat by the sidelines and watched long enough, had to register to make a comment.

I don’t think many of the engineers attacking here have every worked in marketing to understand the real issue here. Instead of discussing what FTDI could have done, let’s discuss what the cloners could have done.

As many have pointed out, the clone chips are a whole different architecture, they are not copying FTDI silicon IP. They could have been really lazy, squatted a random VID/PID and just copied FTDI’s drivers, modified the VID/PID to match and released a true competitor to FTDI without relying on FTDI drivers. But they didn’t do that.

Why? Because they don’t want to be competitors to FTDI, they want you to think they ARE FTDI.

Because they don’t see profit in being a competitor to FTDI, as no one ordering large quantities is going to randomly buy a no-name competitor that has no brick-and-mortar support chain in place like FTDI. They want you to think you are paying the big bucks for a trusted name, trusted reliability and trusted support chain for a product that has none of the above.

To anyone working marketing for FTDI, this has been war for years, they have been under major assault.

To give an example of how important brand integrity is, let me tell you about my relative. He took a job for a while as a big brand repair tech. Let’s say Samsung. During his training they had to take apart brand new $2000 LCD TV sets to the motherboard and put them back together. They were judged on how well the TVs functioned after this process. Then, all the TVs were thrown out. Even if they worked. All 20 techs in the class, in a class repeated every month, TVs were thrown out. And a guard was stationed 24/7 at the garbage can so no employees would take a TV home. And companies do this for all their electronics used for training! Think of all that e-waste.

Because Samsung would rather eat the cost of these TVs, then risk a single one ending up on craigslist, sold and then failing after a month since QC is useless once the TV was taken apart. That could be one customer that would swear never to buy Samsung again, and the brand is tarnished.

That is how marketing people consider the importance of brand recognition.


I know of, through direct interaction, 2 large tech companies that use FTDI in their products today. In a 5 figures of quantity scale. They use them because of their history and brand trust. Their chips have worked well for years, and they have engineers on call that have worked with us during development issues. I  polled the tech labs of both companies after the last FTDIgate and none of the veteran engineers batted an eye, and they still use FTDI, because it’s FTDI. It works, well, and has for years. We pay to get them from US distributors and have never had a product stop working due to a fake chip.


This. Refuse to load the driver and print a message to the system log, but don't spew trash data out and don't brick the chips. This isn't hard to understand...

Really? Let's think through this...

Have you ever installed an updated driver to find the hardware stop working? What’s the first thing you do? Do you rip open your computer or device and check all chips for authenticity? What many people do, is roll-back to the last known working driver, curse the company for making a bad new driver, and never update the driver again. That does nothing to alert anyone to a bad supply chain. And it does everything to make you think FTDI is horrible at releasing working drivers.

 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #406 on: February 04, 2016, 11:01:47 am »
And if counterfeiting was a widespread problem (it's not) and the government suddenly had a widespread policy of seizing and not replacing a large number of average peoples cash that would be similarly wrongheaded and self-destructive.

They already do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

You've missed the point.

What if tomorrow the government announced that they had determined that there was in circulation a large number of counterfeit $20 bills - say encompassing 10% of bills in circulation - that were not easy for the average person to detect.  If they then stationed secret service agents in front of every grocery store in the country who then proceeded to, without permission, go through each person's wallet and remove the counterfeit bills, would you support that? How do you think the public would respond?

The government would never be so stupid to do this. Instead of focusing on the average end user of currency - they appropriately put a lot of effort into making it difficult to counterfeit and then directly target the counterfeiters in their enforcement.

The currency analogy is better than others but still imperfect. Why?  Because, unlike currency, FTDI could choose another way to to target the end user as others have pointed out. Simply - make the driver non functional with fake chips.  Bricking chips and generating erroneous output is not ok and will only contribute to their ongoing fall.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:03:43 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline all_repair

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 530
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #407 on: February 04, 2016, 11:07:51 am »
This. Refuse to load the driver and print a message to the system log, but don't spew trash data out and don't brick the chips. This isn't hard to understand...

I am not sure "refuse to load" and 'refuse to work" is an acceptable solution.  It is too late to do this kind of fixes.  Prolific did that when they were relatively new and acted very fast.  Frankly it is too late for FDTI having a much larger installed base and acted so late.   For future-FDTI that still has a brand to protect.  They have to do a manual scheme (forget about potecting their driver, protect the "brand").  There need to have somekind of codes from the big boxes, to the individual trays and eventually down to the final dongle that their customers can check online to verify.  And they can keep track and display the number of time, location of all the previous verifications.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:11:16 am by all_repair »
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #408 on: February 04, 2016, 11:11:25 am »
And if counterfeiting was a widespread problem (it's not) and the government suddenly had a widespread policy of seizing and not replacing a large number of average peoples cash that would be similarly wrongheaded and self-destructive.

They already do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

You've missed the point.

What if tomorrow the government announced that they had determined that there was in circulation a large number of counterfeit $20 bills - say encompassing 10% of bills in circulation - that were not easy for the average person to detect.  If they then stationed secret service agents in front of every grocery store in the country who then proceeded to, without permission, go through each person's wallet and remove the counterfeit bills, would you support that? How do you think the public would respond?

The government would never be so stupid to do this. Instead of focusing on the average end user of currency - they appropriately put a lot of effort into making it difficult to counterfeit and then directly target the counterfeiters in their enforcement.

The currency analogy is better than others but still imperfect. Why?  Because, unlike currency, FTDI could choose another way to to target the end user as others have pointed out. Simply - make the driver non functional with fake chips.  Bricking chips and generating erroneous output is not ok and will only contribute to their ongoing fall.

Your argument is based on the scale of the problem, which as far as I know we don't have and accurate idea of the number of counterfeit vs real FTDI chips is production products, so your whole argument is based on assumptions.

My wife was a bartender in college. She's been paid and tipped with fake $50 and $100 bills all the time, and every time it came out of her take of the tips/salary. That's the rules to make employees do a better job at screening for fakes. And it happens to bar tenders across the country, as bad guys think darken bars is the best chance of getting away with it.

I like this fake currency analogy as it is spot on.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16003
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #409 on: February 04, 2016, 11:28:52 am »
The analogy is not spot on. Fake cash can be spotted/tested the moment you receive it. A device with a fake FTDI chip is impossible to spot. Every time I have to deal with a relatively large amount of cash I have it tested. Now show me a device which can test whether a device has a fake FTDI chip in it or not.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #410 on: February 04, 2016, 11:36:58 am »
The analogy is not spot on. Fake cash can be spotted/tested the moment you receive it. A device with a fake FTDI chip is impossible to spot. Every time I have to deal with a relatively large amount of cash I have it tested. Now show me a device which can test whether a device has a fake FTDI chip in it or not.

LOL! That's actually what this firmware does! Put FTDIs in a jig and attach them to a windows PC, it will now scream out at you that it's fake! Any suspect device with a FTDI chip in it will now self test with this driver.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16003
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #411 on: February 04, 2016, 11:40:40 am »
The analogy is not spot on. Fake cash can be spotted/tested the moment you receive it. A device with a fake FTDI chip is impossible to spot. Every time I have to deal with a relatively large amount of cash I have it tested. Now show me a device which can test whether a device has a fake FTDI chip in it or not.
LOL! That's actually what this firmware does! Put FTDIs in a jig and attach them to a windows PC, it will now scream out at you that it's fake! Any suspect device with a FTDI chip in it will now self test with this driver.
Buzzzz wrong! You never know if your device has a better fake the driver cannot detect yet but the next driver will. Money has clearly defined markers which tell whether it is genuine or not so a test for real/fake money is well defined. Detecting fake FTDI chips on the other hand is a moving target. Today a device can pass the test, tomorrow it may not.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #412 on: February 04, 2016, 11:47:45 am »
The analogy is not spot on. Fake cash can be spotted/tested the moment you receive it. A device with a fake FTDI chip is impossible to spot. Every time I have to deal with a relatively large amount of cash I have it tested. Now show me a device which can test whether a device has a fake FTDI chip in it or not.
LOL! That's actually what this firmware does! Put FTDIs in a jig and attach them to a windows PC, it will now scream out at you that it's fake! Any suspect device with a FTDI chip in it will now self test with this driver.
Buzzzz wrong! You never know if your device has a better fake the driver cannot detect yet but the next driver will. Money has clearly defined markers which tell whether it is genuine or not so a test for real/fake money is well defined. Detecting fake FTDI chips on the other hand is a moving target. Today a device can pass the test, tomorrow it may not.

Wait a minute, you are arguing that fake money and fake FTDI are not equally because fake FTDIs are always getting better at being fakes and fake money is not? Really?

Advances and printers and scanners didn't make the federal exchange design new and tougher protections? SO i guess all currency started out with ink markers, holograms, interleaved strips, Micro-printing, etc all at once 100s of years ago and the counterfeit groups had a challenge to face that never changed. Huh. 
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #413 on: February 04, 2016, 11:54:49 am »

Your argument is based on the scale of the problem, which as far as I know we don't have and accurate idea of the number of counterfeit vs real FTDI chips is production products, so your whole argument is based on assumptions.

No it is not. Change the number to 1% - it's the same - would you then support agents stopping everyone entering a grocery store and confiscating counterfeit currency?

Quote
My wife was a bartender in college. She's been paid and tipped with fake $50 and $100 bills all the time, and every time it came out of her take of the tips/salary.
   50-$100 tips! What kind of bartender was she? In any case - did it happen to her? was she ok with that?

Quote
That's the rules to make employees do a better job at screening for fakes. And it happens to bar tenders across the country, as bad guys think darken bars is the best chance of getting away with it.

This is were your example completely breaks down.  It's based on the fact that the bartender, waiter, cashier, etc can detect the fake bills before accepting them.  I was a waiter years ago and we were trained to examine large bills (generally not tips) and how to detect fakes - so were the cashiers . If the bills did not show any of the tell tale signs - we were not responsible.

Again - what if the counterfeit bills were impossible for the general public to detect (as is the case with the fake FTDI chips)?

No one buying a product has the ability to know it contains a FTDI clone before purchasing and even after it may be difficult or even impossible to determine if it is fake without running FTDIs destructive firmware.

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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:58:53 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #414 on: February 04, 2016, 12:13:58 pm »

No it is not. Change the number to 1% - it's the same - would you then support agents stopping everyone entering a grocery store and confiscating counterfeit currency?


Again do you have accurate #s of fake FTDIs to compare? I don't. And IF you willingly posse or use fake currency, you are breaking the law. Your example is actually more tame than reality. What's the difference between agents checking your purse, or you trying to spend the fake money, the cashier holding onto it when they see it's fake and calling the cops? That's what actually happens, as cashiers if you detect a fake you are told to hold onto it, report it to management so they can call the cops. You don't get it back. I was a cashier for Publix as a kid. That was the procedure.

Once identified you lose use of that counterfeit money. Just like here where you lose use of the fake FTDI, once identified. Socially it's always been accepted that the world works as receiver beware. Just because you got dupped into taking something fake, doesn't mean you have a legal or moral right to use it or pass it along. Wherever the fake is detected, it gets taken away.

Quote
   50-$100 tips! What kind of bartender was she? In any case - did it happen to her? was she ok with that?

PAID and tipped. Not just tipped. And no, of course not. But she didn't blame the system by which the bill was determined counterfeit, she blamed the person that gave it to her!

Quote

This is were your example completely breaks down.  It's based on the fact that the bartender, waiter, cashier, etc can detect the fake bills before accepting them.  I was a waiter years ago and we were trained to examine large bills (generally not tips) and how to detect fakes - so were the cashiers . If the bills did not show any of the tell tale signs - we were not responsible.

We have that now ! It's this firmware. You can build a jig and test all incomming stock. It will self test when you connect it to a Windows PC.

Quote
no way of knowing the product has a fake FTDI chip in it beforehand and are being harmed by FTDIs tactics if it does.

Funny, I assume for all fake ICs, not just FTDI, that we never have a good way to know if they are fake or not. Some 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 fake
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 12:15:58 pm by madsci1016 »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #415 on: February 04, 2016, 12:29:47 pm »

Again do you have accurate #s of fake FTDIs to compare?
And again, that is irrelevant to the point.

And obviously if the number of fake chips was very, very small, FTDI would not attempt these shenanigans.

Quote
We have that now ! It's this firmware. You can build a jig and test all incomming stock. It will self test when you connect it to a Windows PC.
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.

Quote
Some 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 fake
Strawman. No one would blame FTDI if fake chips were catching on fire.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 12:32:31 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #416 on: February 04, 2016, 12:35:03 pm »
...
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.

Myself I find Cypress offerings better for my needs, that doesn't tarnish my objectivity of expressing my opinion against IP theft.

Buy go ahead and promote piracy all you want.

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?

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.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #417 on: February 04, 2016, 12:59:19 pm »
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?
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #418 on: February 04, 2016, 01:12:21 pm »

And obviously if the number of fake chips was very, very small, FTDI would not attempt these shenanigans.

There's only 0.01% counterfeit currency in circulation. Yet there what like 6 tiers of anti-counterfeit technology built into our bills now? At how much of an investment into the R&D to enable that technology? And every time a new detection method was developed to detect fake currency, all the people holding the now detectable fake currency suddenly loss the use of that money. Sounds awfully familiar.

Quote
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).


Because it's hard to detect fakes we shouldn't bother to do something about it? Should we apply that to all illegal activity? FTDI has literally given us tools to make it easier to test for fakes.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote
Quote
Some 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 fake
Strawman. No one would blame FTDI if fake chips were catching on fire.

And I don't blame them for a vendor selling me fake chips. They have no obligation to make non FTDI hardware work with FTDI drivers
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • Country: ca
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #419 on: February 04, 2016, 01:24:31 pm »
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.
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #420 on: February 04, 2016, 01:30:23 pm »
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.
 

Offline miguelvp

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5549
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #421 on: February 04, 2016, 01:33:25 pm »
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?

Easy, you contact FTDI sales and they should take care of you as far as the distribution and support goes.

Since people speculate I'm going to do the same.

What if some shady manufacturer started to sell uCurrents that look like the real thing but not really up to spec. What would Dave do when he is inundated with support calls and asking for refunds, as far as the consumer is concerned it's his product after all and he should offer support because they did buy it in good faith even if they though it was a bit odd that the price was just 10% of the original.

Or what if someone shadowed his content with his material on YouTube? Oh wait, that did happen.
I can think of a thousand ways to monetize other peoples videos under the fair use clause.

Same thing with Open Source Hardware, sure there will be pressure not to do it, but legally there is no recourse.

I wonder how much did FTDI saved just by not having to deal with customer support cases and engineering hours investigating those cases, when now they just can tell the manufacturer that they where very unfortunate to purchase fake chips and to contact their sales department so they can find a trusted distributor.

The thing is that the customer doesn't even know what FTDI is, so they will go to the manufacturer to straighten things out since they are after all the ones that sold the product and they should support it. I don't see why FTDI has to support non FTDI products that are eating in their profits.

Also are these clones 100% up to spec, as in do they have the same capabilities that that FT232 has according the datasheet?
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #422 on: February 04, 2016, 01:40:18 pm »
That labeling of people that don't share your opinion
it'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
Quote
cancels everything you are saying because you are not being objective.
a convenient way to dodge the issues I raise.
Quote
Buy 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?

Quote
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.
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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 01:41:52 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • Country: ca
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #423 on: February 04, 2016, 01:42:41 pm »
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.
 

Offline madsci1016

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #424 on: February 04, 2016, 01:56:30 pm »


- 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.

I guess I am misreading your original post, as I thought you were inferring to never design with FTDI again.

The companies I know of have existing products in the field with FTDI, and will continue to sell those products without changing them away from FTDI, and will also continue to use FTDI in new designs, as the IP of the company is already invested in FTDI, and designing, regression testing, and supporting mixed products with mixed drivers would cost more money.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf