..., etc but the fact is that is taking extra effort one way or another so companies are going for non-FTDI chips because it is easier and thus cheaper for them. It is all about the economics of doing business.
..., etc but the fact is that is taking extra effort one way or another so companies are going for non-FTDI chips because it is easier and thus cheaper for them. It is all about the economics of doing business.
Correction, it's not a fact. It's just your opinion.
..., etc but the fact is that is taking extra effort one way or another so companies are going for non-FTDI chips because it is easier and thus cheaper for them. It is all about the economics of doing business.
Correction, it's not a fact. It's just your opinion.It is a fact! You can read the details in my previous posting about a company which is in this exact situation and just changes to a different USB-UART bridge chip because they don't want the hassle.
FTDI isn't just 'not supporting' counterfeit chips, they're actively trying to prevent them from working.Nothing wrong with that. People shouldn't use counterfeit chips. As soon as they discover that their device stops working,
blame the seller of the device. Not FTDI.And yet that is not happening. People can keep yabbering on about managing their supply lines, complaining to suppliers, etc but the fact is that is taking extra effort one way or another so companies are going for non-FTDI chips because it is easier and thus cheaper for them. It is all about the economics of doing business. Companies don't care whether FTDI is right or wrong; they just want to order a bunch of USB-UART cables from their supplier in China and be done with it. These kind of cables are usually not their core business anyway so less hassle it better.
FTDI did in the first instance make a mistake. They bricked the counterfeit devices.
Nothing wrong with that. It's illegal to use/sell or import counterfeit products.
Blame the seller. Not FTDI.
In the short term it is easier and cheaper. However, with the grown popularity of alternate solutions such as the CH340, it is only a matter of time this will be counterfeit as well, which imposes an unknown scenario - i.e., this device can fail in yet unforeseeable scenarios.
Therefore, in this case the scale goes back towards FTDI: counterfeits (or most of them) now fail in a deterministic way, which raises the accountability of the supply chain.
FTDI did in the first instance make a mistake. They bricked the counterfeit devices.
Nothing wrong with that. It's illegal to use/sell or import counterfeit products.
Blame the seller. Not FTDI.Again, you seem to be suggesting that because one wrong thing was done, something FTDI does in retaliation is automatically considered ethical, regardless of what it is.
FTDI did in the first instance make a mistake. They bricked the counterfeit devices.
Nothing wrong with that. It's illegal to use/sell or import counterfeit products.
Blame the seller. Not FTDI.Again, you seem to be suggesting that because one wrong thing was done, something FTDI does in retaliation is automatically considered ethical, regardless of what it is.
No, I'm not. It's my opinion that, in this particular case, it's completely ethical to brick counterfeit chips.
I sympathize both with FTDI and the victims (FTDI is a victim as well in this case) and you should aim your anger to
the counterfeiters.
FTDI did in the first instance make a mistake. They bricked the counterfeit devices.
Nothing wrong with that. It's illegal to use/sell or import counterfeit products.
Blame the seller. Not FTDI.
Sorry, but you're are stil totally wrong. The legal and proper way is to let law enforcement handle the counterfeit chips. Because some chip seems to be a counterfeit doesn't give FTDI the right to fix the problem themselves. Doing that is a crime also. And using or owning a counterfeit product is perfectly legal in most countries.
The legal and proper way is to let law enforcement handle the counterfeit chips. Because some chip seems to be a counterfeit doesn't give FTDI the right to fix the problem themselves.
Doing that is a crime also.
And using or owning a counterfeit product is perfectly legal in most countries.
Who cares whether it's illegal? You can decide whether it's ethical or not without consulting the law books.
Doing that is a crime also.
So, you are a laywer now?
In most western countries, importing, producing and/or selling counterfeit chips (or devices that contain them),
is illegal.
Who cares whether it's illegal? You can decide whether it's ethical or not without consulting the law books.
Who cares whether it's illegal? You can decide whether it's ethical or not without consulting the law books.I fully agree, but vigilantism isn't ethical.
... instead of keeping on trolling.
Who cares whether it's illegal? You can decide whether it's ethical or not without consulting the law books.
I believe it's unethical to import, sell or distribute counterfeit chips.
I believe it's also unethical to demand from FTDI that they should support counterfeit chips with their drivers.
So, aim your anger to the counterfeiters.
The question now is whether FTDI are behaving ethically.
This no longer has anything to do with the counterfeiters.
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.
You have yet to give any reason why you believe it is ethical ...
... other than various claims that two wrongs make right.
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.
There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.