Simple questions not answered so it is pretty clear you don't have an answer.
Given your history, I suppose you certainly have experience to state this.
Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.
QED.
No one comes with "automatic" knowledge about a fake FTDI chip but you know google is very easy to use. Type in "FTDI" and what do you get on the top of the page. Is google really that hard to use? Do I have to pray to google..........
Again, you inject "FTDI" as a prerequisite. I have a device in my hand, tell me what components are in it. Use google or any other tool to tell me whats in it. You can't. You require a minimum level of knowledge that not every end user has.
Answer the questions first and actually quote the full thing instead of cutting it off.
Ah the demands of the loser, "I won't actually address the root questions you're presenting, but man are you a insufferable twit for not answering my questions!" As to "cutting the rest off," your needless qualifiers don't justify the ends.
You didn't answer the question with a yes/no. (You are free to extend your answer) What the user expects can be updated by something called the news. If the device is actually killed is not a exception but a fact (that it isn't killed).
You answered another question does it work as a user used to expect. Calling kettle black basically now.
You realize with this last sentence, then if nothing else, that you're admitting you're trying to dodge the issue? When you yourself are not going to bother to close the first point before raising the next question, I get to do the same. Your presumed moral high ground does not exist here.
"If the device is actually killed is not an exception but a fact that it isn't killed" - taking this at face value, you apparently live in a subjective world where a device can be dead and not dead at the same time. What I'll assume, given the usual banging on you do, is that because you have the capacity to fix it, just as a mechanic has the means to repair an engine, you conclude that everyone else can too. Which does not follow at all.
I did answer the double question (You just quoted me answering it) No the user does not expect it to be fake, and Yes it does work as intended by the driver.
if one device stops working, and another device stops working (guess which one is the engine, and which is the semiconductor), to the end user, both are in an equal state of non-operation. The quote I copied,
agreed with this, which means every other bit of your rambling is moot. Pointless. Your entire basis requires that your answer to there being a difference was not 'no,' but 'yes.'
Answer the questions directly. You added a combo question by having an or in the question itself so I answered in two parts one for each option. My questions are simple
Is the device physically damaged?
Is the device not still communicating with other software?
Does the device require physical repair?
1. See top; no.
2. What is "other software"
3. Just to be pedantic. Technically yes, given that EEPROM is a physical thing and in one physical state it's inoperable, in another it's functional and it depends on 'repairing' the bits to be in the right electrical state.
You're welcome to cake on anything else you want, but your feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the reality that the end user sees: the fact that between one inoperable device and another, they're both dead as far as the end user is concerned. They are not "miles apart."