Didn't you watch the video? The bit where Dave says, "Even if you try your best to make sure the chips are genuine, you can never be sure because the supply chains have too many links in them..."
Where is that video?
Did you grasp the concept by now that the FTDI using world (genuine or otherwise) does not 100% rely on windoze drivers? Excellent! Because that way when you resort to the broken argument of "but but windows ftdi drivers" again, we can simply reply "linux ftdi drivers" as shorthand notation for "dear Rufus, your driver argument is a load of horse droppings". That will save some time.
So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!Spot the lack of FTDI copyright in the linux drivers.
My 2 cents.
I think the general consensus here is that FTDI are in their right to stop the non-genuine chips working with their driver and the way they should do that is by simply refusing to work with the non-genuine chips.
<snip>
Good to see at least some people are thinking straight here. FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that, then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?
Based on the code that was posted here, the PID is overwritten for all chips, but it only sticks on the fake ones. Is FTDI to blame here? Really? You get scammed and you blame the manufacturer for it...
By the way, I have worked at the company who managed to buy a large quantity of fake FTDI chips. Does anyone think it would have been good for business if the drivers were shouting "Your FTDI device is not genuine!" to the customer's face? We were just glad we found it out at the testing stage and were able to get the money back. The distributor, on the other hand, probably lost quite a bit of money.
Wafer fabs are expensive. I wonder why western/russian governments that rely on these sensitive chips do not consider them as 'strategic' assets and invest in fabs like they would in a power plant or any other basic infrastructure?
The NSA has it's own wafer fab.
Do you think its better for business if a high percentage of your devices simply fail out of the box for no apparent reason?
Good to see at least some people are thinking straight here. FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that, then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?
Based on the code that was posted here, the PID is overwritten for all chips, but it only sticks on the fake ones. Is FTDI to blame here? Really? You get scammed and you blame the manufacturer for it...
By the way, I have worked at the company who managed to buy a large quantity of fake FTDI chips. Does anyone think it would have been good for business if the drivers were shouting "Your FTDI device is not genuine!" to the customer's face? We were just glad we found it out at the testing stage and were able to get the money back. The distributor, on the other hand, probably lost quite a bit of money.
The NSA has it's own wafer fab.
So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!
So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!
Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?
Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?
FTDI think their poor chip is so innovative and precious, yea you bet, they must be raking in money on these chips bit time:
FTDI prices: http://www.findchips.com/search/FT232RL
ATmega16u2 with USB port, serial port and a who MCU: http://www.findchips.com/search/atmega16u2
looks like they are so innovative the FT232RL was the last good part they made....... they have staked everything on it and protect it so fiercely
Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?
Can the FTDI chips have their firmware changed over USB ? the fakes are probably the ones that can be programmed as they are made with different technology.
For those considering moving to using Prolific, keep in mind they did THE SAME THING YEARS AGO and used their windows drivers to hurt any end users who had unknowingly purchased devices containing fake prolific chips as well. Why do these stupid companies think hurting the END USER is the solution to what is obviously a international commerce, patent, trademark issue?!
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/note-how-to-not-get-scammed-with-prolific-(pl2303)-usb-serial-adapters/
Why I find humorous about this FTDI thing, is the above is why I originally switched from preferring Prolific to strictly only using FTDI whenever possible for the last few years. I guess now I won't use either one, because they both have now shown idiocy.
FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that,
then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?
...and IBM has recently thrown in the towel as well.