FTDI pisses off Arduino fanboys, then launches Arduino-compatible boards

[mikeselectricstuff]

Great timing guys! 
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/ftdi-chip-launches-arduino-compatible-vm800p-daughter-cards-2014-10/

[SirNick]

What happened between FTDI and the Arduino crowd?  (Sorry, I'm not on the Facebook.) 

[LoyalServant]

Yeah I am really interested... another device for them to brick! 

[SirNick]

NM, just saw the rant video.  Bit of a **** move, but I'm not too fussed.  vi /usr/src/linux/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio_ids.h, change the ID to 0, recompile.  No problem.    I'm sure someone will write a utility to change the PID back soon enough.

[Paul Moir]

Of course, already done.  And a patch making it's way up to mainline to accept PID 0 as a 6001. 

Now why anyone would ever want to use an operating system where no 3rd party vets driver code is the million dollar question.   

[Chipguy]

Yeah sure, now everybody who got just bitten or worried by #FTDIgate is now in the mood to start playing around with EVE 

Good on ya, Fred 

[chickenHeadKnob]

 I read that press release mike linked to backwards and forwards and I still  didn't have a good idea what it was until I went to the FTDI page: http://www.ftdichip.com/EVE.htm.

 So the tldr version is that this thing is a "serial backpack" type of lcd controller which takes I2C or spi input from a micro and then controls a color graphic lcd / touchscreen. Ok, now that I know I can see it does have some value in that you don't need a frame buffer in the micro. but that press release -Sheesh!-

[westfw]

The relevant "Arduino compatible" board is here: http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/Modules/VM800P.html
It actually sounds sorta nice, and is a perfectly valid "arduino compatible" product unlikely to piss off anyone, IMO.

FWIW, Official Arduino boards haven't used FTDI chips in quite a while (since "uno"); there may be a story there, but it's an old one.  You can still get clones, counterfeits, and derivatives with FTDI chips (and presumably some of them are counterfeit FTDI chips as well, and these are the board that people are afraid will stop working.)  (although most of the really cheap clones I've seen recently are "legitimately re-engineered" products using non-FTDI USB/Serial chips (Prolific[sic], cp2102 [?], ch340g [where did that come from?]...)

[tggzzz]

It's actually quite a nice graphics controller, just a shame it only connects to LCDs. Of course, FTDI's reputation is in tatters now, especially with the Arduino crowd, and it's likely to be really expensive so I doubt they will sell many.

You can find whether you think they are "really expensive" by looking at the Mouser page http://uk.mouser.com/new/ftdi/ftdi-vm800p-eve-plus-module/ which contains a "buy" link to their price list.

[JoeO]

Around $100 American.

[BigClive]

Hmm, quite expensive.  I'll wait for the clone.   

[SirNick]

Tatters?  I dunno about that... I suspect this will blow over.

The cheap knockoff houses will just use a different chip (or a different driver).  The big companies with any real stake in the matter aren't using fake parts, so they (and their customers) will never feel it.  The only ones affected are the con-artists stealing someone else's USB vendor ID (who kinda deserved it) and their users.  The users are kind of innocent victims, but when you troll eBay for the cheapest gadget you can get from China, your expectations shouldn't be all that high.

[Richard Head]

I don't suppose there's any way to actually identify a counterfeit FT232RL, is there?
I'm designing them into two different products as we speak.

[wraper]

I don't suppose there's any way to actually identify a counterfeit FT232RL, is there?
I'm designing them into two different products as we speak.

1. Use the new driver and see if it kills them. 2. Measure current when active and suspend on a test jig (slightly modified UART usb adapter from ebay will do) and compare to the datasheet / known good IC from reputable supplier. IMO that will detect 99% of the knockofs.

The FT232R is capable of operating at a voltage supply between +3.3V and +5V with a nominal
operational mode current of 15mA and a nominal USB suspend mode current of 70µA.

[nctnico]

It's actually quite a nice graphics controller, just a shame it only connects to LCDs. Of course, FTDI's reputation is in tatters now, especially with the Arduino crowd, and it's likely to be really expensive so I doubt they will sell many.

You can find whether you think they are "really expensive" by looking at the Mouser page http://uk.mouser.com/new/ftdi/ftdi-vm800p-eve-plus-module/ which contains a "buy" link to their price list.

That is pretty expensive. You can get LPC1768 boards with TFT+touch for less than that (including shipping) from Ebay. Software to create your GUI (free for personal use AFAIK) is included.

[LukeW]

Now why anyone would ever want to use an operating system where no 3rd party vets driver code is the million dollar question.   

So you think that the FT232 "attack" never made it into Windows Update as a vetted, signed, "genuine" driver?

[VK3DRB]

I see FTDI's point of view. Any user who has used pirated FTDI chips have effectively been receiving stolen goods, albeit unknowingly. These chip pirates have been stealing IP because they simply don't have the brains to be innovative. As with most criminal activity, we all have to pay. And like with all criminals, it is innocent people who are adversely affected. Something needs to be done to force the Chinese government to destroy their lucrative piracy industry. Forget about making chips that Hoo Flung Dung Enterprises cannot copy... it won't work.

One solution is for the chip pirates to be taken out and executed with a bullet to the back of their skulls in front of their employees and family members and their factories bulldozed. That will solve the problem.

[LukeW]

But when you actually look at the silicon, it is not just a ripoff of the mask artwork for the FT232R... they have actually designed their own cleanroom copy from scratch, and the chips seem to work well. So if they simply marketed their own USB virtual UART chips under their own brand, completely compatible with the FT232R but half the price, everybody would be happy and customers would still buy them.

[wraper]

But when you actually look at the silicon, it is not just a ripoff of the mask artwork for the FT232R... they have actually designed their own cleanroom copy from scratch, and the chips seem to work well. So if they simply marketed their own USB virtual UART chips under their own brand, completely compatible with the FT232R but half the price, everybody would be happy and customers would still buy them.

They designed their own, but definitely not clean room.

[Rufus]

So if they simply marketed their own USB virtual UART chips under their own brand, completely compatible with the FT232R but half the price, everybody would be happy and customers would still buy them.

No because they would still be ripping off FTDI drivers. If they also produced their own drivers and joined USB-IF to get their own VID to make sure their drivers were used then everybody would be happy.

[westfw]

That CH340 chip that has been showing up (on arduinos and serial converters) is a good example of how other vendors ought to be doing it.  Apparently adequate chip with interesting aspects (SO16 package!), their own sets of drivers, and ... very cheap...

[rob77]

that FTDI display module is nice.. i like it  but the price is a bit high... i would happily pay approx 40-45Eur (including VAT) for the 4,3'' version but definitely not the price they're asking 

[SirNick]

No because they would still be ripping off FTDI drivers. If they also produced their own drivers and joined USB-IF to get their own VID to make sure their drivers were used then everybody would be happy.

 

That CH340 chip that has been showing up (on arduinos and serial converters) is a good example of how other vendors ought to be doing it.  Apparently adequate chip with interesting aspects (SO16 package!), their own sets of drivers, and ... very cheap...

Doesn't Windows have a generic CDC driver for emulated serial ports?  I know FTDI and Prolific use their own, but I thought I heard at one time that you could create a generic virtual COM port device with a USB-enabled microcontroller, and wouldn't need to supply drivers at all.  If that's the case, I don't understand why anyone would even bother trying to clone a chip that does require specific drivers.  It's just an added hassle.

I really need to learn more about USB.

[LukeW]

Doesn't Windows have a generic CDC driver for emulated serial ports?  I know FTDI and Prolific use their own, but I thought I heard at one time that you could create a generic virtual COM port device with a USB-enabled microcontroller, and wouldn't need to supply drivers at all.  If that's the case, I don't understand why anyone would even bother trying to clone a chip that does require specific drivers.  It's just an added hassle.

Yeah, that's the way a lot of Arduino-style stuff is doing it these days, the official Arduino boards are using ATmega16U2s, no FTDI or FTDI-like chips.

[LukeW]

So if they simply marketed their own USB virtual UART chips under their own brand, completely compatible with the FT232R but half the price, everybody would be happy and customers would still buy them.

No because they would still be ripping off FTDI drivers. If they also produced their own drivers and joined USB-IF to get their own VID to make sure their drivers were used then everybody would be happy.

True.

[pickle9000]

I don't suppose there's any way to actually identify a counterfeit FT232RL, is there?
I'm designing them into two different products as we speak.

This question is the definition of what FTDI did wrong.

You can say they had the right, did not, easy to fix and a million other things but designers have enough crap to deal with. As far as I know if you have to ask this sort of question best to go elsewhere. For new products that is a definite possibility and may not be limited to a single chip but to the brand.

[westfw]

Doesn't Windows have a generic CDC driver for emulated serial ports?

Yes (Arduino Uno/etc uses it, for example.)  But for windows you still need at least a .inf file to confirm to windows that the particular VID/PID is in fact a CDC device.  Or something like that :-(

I'm not sure why USB/Serial devices seem to frequently have their own drivers.  I don't recall seeing a lot of flames about the CDC specifications being awful, for example.  (However, windows and Mac apparently have different problems dealing with "composite" devices (in general) that include CDC as a component (for example, the TI launchpad wants to define both CDC "comm uart" and custom HID "debug interface", and had assorted problems.  Maple wanted to be both CDC and Mass Storage, and that had problems.)  Of course, if you use the windows driver, you're also at the mercy of bugs that it may have, without much hope of fixing them yourself...)

I really need to learn more about USB.

You can start with this "USB Design by Example" document made available by FTDI.  http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/TechnicalPublications/USBDesignByExample.htm
It does have some FTDI-specific references, but it's not bad for something that's free.  (One of the annoying thing about this whole FTDI-gate thing is that I used to think that FTDI was one of the better examples of how a complex-peripheral chip company ought to work.  Lots of documentation, the features you wanted to have, drivers for many platforms...  Sigh.)
After that, there's Jan Axelson's book: http://janaxelson.com/usbc.htm
There was also an NXP "class" presented at a trade show that I found relatively useful, maybe ?  (Hmm.  doesn't look like the video came out too good.)
Basically, you go through some relatively exacting "Enumeration" phase that defines to the host what sort of device(s) you have, and then you provide some service routines for reading and providing data for the "endpoints" of those devices.

(although, having read a lot of each of those, but not having actually written any USB code, I'm finding that it looks like there might be a pretty big gap between "theory" and "practice"   Sigh.)
(And on a lot of microcontrollers, it looks like the provided solution is "use our bloated general purpose libraries, because USB is obviously too complex for end users to actually write code."  Sigh, again.)

[amyk]

This is a good introduction to USB: http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb1.shtml

The official spec isn't all that hard to read either, once you've read that one.

[SirNick]

Thanks for the links, amyk, westfw..  :-)  Looks like I have some material to dig into after I finish the book on my nightstand. 

[tszaboo]

The thing is dear FTDI:
No one will ever use the FT800. The whole concept is bad. Make ULPI USB and I2S. And a proper JTAG device to program platform flash and FPGAs.
That is all.

[westfw]

The whole concept is bad.

Huh?  If I had a chip with ULPI  USB and I2S, it'd probably be available in a version with built-in LCD support, and I wouldn't need "Eve."  The target market is people with smaller processors that can't do those.  Just like the FT232 is aimed at people who want USB connectivity without having a USB peripheral on their "main cpu."  (Hey!  Their existing customer base!  How about that!)

Now, it may not be very sensible to want to drive an LCD display with such an anemic CPU (by today's standards), but there seem to be quite a few people who want to do it anyway.

(Is there any standardization of LCD panel pinouts for the FPC cables that would presumably connect to something like this?)