Is FTDI the only USB/Serial that has a driver in the default windows installation?
If not, I don't see what advantage FTDI has these days considering the low cost of MCU/USB ICs.
The chips are sold as counterfeits and therefor they should not be used. This is very simple and is valid in the whole of europe. A fake Rolex will also be destroyed and the buyer is responsible for this. Actually buying counterfeit products is a crime.
The apportion of blame between FTDI & Microsoft may also be tricky to determine.
I would _really_ like to know if MS knew about it though.
Windows Certification Program Testing Agreement. This agreement includes language that is related to testing procedures, testing policies, intellectual property rights, support requirements, audit policies, payment policies, indemnification, warranty, liabilities, confidentiality, term and termination, metadata, and digital rights management (DRM) clauses. Signing this agreement is required for participation in the program.
By the way, I don't think anyone has brought this up yet.
How do we know that in the future this, or similar actions taken in FTDI's driver won't accidentally brick legitimate FTDI devices? I can easily envision a particular - maybe old - hardware version of one of their devices being left out of a test matrix and then suddenly FTDI (and their customers and customers' customers) are hoist by their own petard.
No, the risk is too great now to use FTDI chips - legitimate or otherwise - anymore.
Is FTDI the only USB/Serial that has a driver in the default windows installation?
If not, I don't see what advantage FTDI has these days considering the low cost of MCU/USB ICs.I don't know if it is the only one.
But it is probabely one of the few that is signed.
Most MCUs often offer a USB interface, but all the firmware you still need to write. Also you have to write a driver for such a device. You need to get the necessary IDs and once you have written the driver you need to get it signed. Complicated stuff.
The FTDI is a simple device with little logic needed and RS232 out. So you can hook it up to your device very easily.
Customer may keep the Atmel Vendor Identifier (Atmel VID) and Product Identifier (PID) in their product that integrates an Atmel USB Flash Microcontroller (“Integrated Product”) from one Atmel original example subject to the following acknowledgments and/or conditions:
Most manufacturers don't pay book pricing on such ICs. FTDI has a sales force and they might offer better pricing if one has the volume and asks professionally. The IC vendor will then issue you a letter allowing you to buy at the better price through distribution.
These negotiations happen all the time in the industry.
Most manufacturers don't pay book pricing on such ICs. FTDI has a sales force and they might offer better pricing if one has the volume and asks professionally. The IC vendor will then issue you a letter allowing you to buy at the better price through distribution.
These negotiations happen all the time in the industry.
The point I'm getting at here is that FTDI's business is not sustainable even without this particular flap. They have failed to truly innovate. The've surely amortized the development and NREs from the FT232, and haven't adjusted the price down to reflect that. It's economical to use a general-purpose micro controller to implement every feature of their product for less money. What's the value proposition? Their driver is included in windows? Well, that's fantastic for them. Mac and linux computers can use USB CDC devices without any driver at all. For some idiotic reason, MS requires a INF for CDC devices. Not only that, the FTDI driver available on the mac is a piece of shit. If kernel panics my computer constantly. I'm looking forward to a time where FTDI doesn't exist so everyone can move on to CDC.
Most manufacturers don't pay book pricing on such ICs. FTDI has a sales force and they might offer better pricing if one has the volume and asks professionally. The IC vendor will then issue you a letter allowing you to buy at the better price through distribution.
These negotiations happen all the time in the industry.
Are you implying that Microchip and Atmel won't do the same thing?
Most manufacturers don't pay book pricing on such ICs. FTDI has a sales force and they might offer better pricing if one has the volume and asks professionally. The IC vendor will then issue you a letter allowing you to buy at the better price through distribution.
These negotiations happen all the time in the industry.
Are you implying that Microchip and Atmel won't do the same thing?
interesting that ftdi has rolled back their bad image (2.12) and the download link on THEIR site now redirects to 2.10.
interesting that ftdi has rolled back their bad image (2.12) and the download link on THEIR site now redirects to 2.10.
No it doesn't.
A MAC address is in its nature not unique nor does it needs to be. As long as you have one MAC address on a segment it works correctly. The IPV6 address needs to be unique if some one clones them you get a lot of problems.
By the way, I don't think anyone has brought this up yet.
How do we know that in the future this, or similar actions taken in FTDI's driver won't accidentally brick legitimate FTDI devices? I can easily envision a particular - maybe old - hardware version of one of their devices being left out of a test matrix and then suddenly FTDI (and their customers and customers' customers) are hoist by their own petard.
No, the risk is too great now to use FTDI chips - legitimate or otherwise - anymore.
interesting that ftdi has rolled back their bad image (2.12) and the download link on THEIR site now redirects to 2.10.
No it doesn't.The link has changed to the 2.12 executable now, but there was a point earlier today when it redirected to a zipped version of 2.10.
yeh, it used to be cp21xx that had a bad reputation because there were so many fakes and they constantly updated the drivers to break them so it seemed the they never worked
Are you sure you don't mean the Prolific chip (PL2303)?
The CP21xx (Silabs), I don't recall there ever being any problems with breaking drivers or known fakes.
But the Prolific's did have those issues, however I don't think they intentionally broke drivers, but just that the new drivers didn't work with the fake chips, and they didn't actually go out of their way to reprogram the chips as FTDI has done.
We had a meeting at work today about that issue:
Our board assembler gets all the material from trustworty distributors.
However there is still a residual risk of having counterfeit mixed with genuine one.