Author Topic: FTDIgate 2.0?  (Read 248268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #750 on: February 28, 2016, 08:37:13 am »
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.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #751 on: February 28, 2016, 08:39:16 am »
Now you hijack end users' equipment. End users are usually unsuspecting and they will find their equipment suddenly stopped working, causing a surge of complaints and RMA to the manufacturers of their equipment (who is the actual customers of FTDI.)

No, they are not the actual customers of FTDI. They are the actual customers of counterfeit chips.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18036
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #752 on: February 28, 2016, 08:45:20 am »
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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • Country: ca
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #753 on: February 28, 2016, 08:57:16 am »
Hassle factor can not be underrated.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #754 on: February 28, 2016, 08:59:51 am »
..., 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.

Don't you think that FTDI has thought about this as well? Maybe they decided that their damage is less this way.

So far, most of the complains are coming from hobbyists and semi-profs. I haven't heard from any big problems in the industry
with FTDI. Looks like most problems occurred with devices bought at shady places. Not a big deal for the business of FTDI.
The reason that it looks like a big deal for some people, is because hobbyists tend to be very vocal.
They scream and whine a lot on different forums.



The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18036
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #755 on: February 28, 2016, 09:15:36 am »
..., 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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #756 on: February 28, 2016, 09:22:24 am »
..., 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.

For you it's a fact. For me it's just something you wrote which can not be checked so we just have to believe you.

Also, you extrapolate one company to multiple companies. That's not correct.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #757 on: February 28, 2016, 12:24:00 pm »
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.
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.

For companies that are actual semiconductor company customers - i.e., use their devices in their products - the early detection of fakes is taken into consideration very highly across the industry, either via visual inspection or, in this particular case, functional inspection. Just as anecdotal evidence, I know companies that use FTDI devices in their products and will not do a redesign for this factor alone but instead take into consideration the whole solution such as availability, OS drivers, support, etc. 

Obviously that, for companies that need accessories or purchase finished board through third parties, this can become a nuisance that can be worked around in several ways, including but not limited to the proposed change in specs (imposing a specific device supplier). 
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #758 on: February 28, 2016, 12:35:59 pm »
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. You keep repeating this "it's not FTDI's fault, because a bad thing happened to them".

Are you ignoring it to make yourself look better? Or can you just not think of a rebuttal?
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline janoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2955
  • Country: fr
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #759 on: February 28, 2016, 12:47:34 pm »
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.

Wow. So basically it is a choice between putting in a chip that could fail because of someone deciding to counterfeit a $0.1 Chinese part (didn't happen so far, so this is just unsubstantiated FUD) or a known to be counterfeited and known to fail part that the vendor is actively sabotaging. Apparently the latter is preferable somehow.  :palm:

I have always thought that the manufacturer wants to build a product that works and that doesn't cause support nightmares and will thus choose components accordingly. A component with a "predictable failure mode" (= aka batshit crazy component vendor that can decide to make my gizmo stop working with the next driver release just because) is not something any sane person would use.



 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #760 on: February 28, 2016, 01:03:51 pm »
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.


The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 892
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #761 on: February 28, 2016, 01:06:25 pm »
Recently we hard to recall a bunch of products because many batches of a certain chip were faulty - this is a legit component bought through official channels. We worked with the manufacturer to identify the problem and the faulty batches. The issue had affected components for many months, fortunately the failure mode is not too common. Nevertheless, it is a very expensive and time consuming recall and attracted the close attention of senior management - not in a good way.

We really want to avoid issues in the field, regardless of how they are caused. We also try to avoid relying on single suppliers. So the good thing that has come from the FTDI debacle is that I have evaluated competing products to FTDI, and am in a position to recommend an alternative design, something I wouldn't have bothered to do before.

There are several good alternatives to FTDI.
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #762 on: February 28, 2016, 01:08:09 pm »
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.

Then why do you keep trying to make that "point"?
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4840
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #763 on: February 28, 2016, 02:17:56 pm »
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.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #764 on: February 28, 2016, 03:27:21 pm »
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.

No,  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.

I believe they have the right to do so. At least till a judge proves that what FTDI did is wrong.

Doing that is a crime also.

So, you are a laywer now?

And using or owning a counterfeit product is perfectly legal in most countries.

In most western countries, importing, producing and/or selling counterfeit chips (or devices that contain them),
is illegal.


The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #765 on: February 28, 2016, 03:28:47 pm »
Who cares whether it's illegal? You can decide whether it's ethical or not without consulting the law books.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #766 on: February 28, 2016, 03:34:40 pm »
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 difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4840
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #767 on: February 28, 2016, 03:46:21 pm »
Doing that is a crime also.

So, you are a laywer now?

No, I've written that already.

Quote
In most western countries, importing, producing and/or selling counterfeit chips (or devices that contain them),
is illegal.

:palm: selling/importing/producing != owning/using

Please learn some basics of law instead of keeping on trolling.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4840
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #768 on: February 28, 2016, 03:48:33 pm »
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.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18036
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #769 on: February 28, 2016, 03:51:12 pm »
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.
And legal!
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #770 on: February 28, 2016, 04:03:02 pm »
... instead of keeping on trolling.

Troll: somebody who doesn't agree with my opinion.

Usually used when out of arguments.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #771 on: February 28, 2016, 04:11:23 pm »
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.

None of that has anything to do with whether FTDI acted ethically, unless you think that they get to do whatever they want because someone did something bad to them. I don't care what the counterfeiters are doing. We've established that it's not good. I've moved on from that. The question now is whether FTDI are behaving ethically. This no longer has anything to do with the counterfeiters.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18036
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #772 on: February 28, 2016, 04:18:27 pm »
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 small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #773 on: February 28, 2016, 04:35:15 pm »
The question now is whether FTDI are behaving ethically.

I believe it is ethical.

This no longer has anything to do with the counterfeiters.

Wrong. It has everything to do with counterfeiters. You can't look at one part without looking at the other part.
They are connected. Oversimplifying the case is not helping it at all.

The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #774 on: February 28, 2016, 04:36:36 pm »
You have yet to give any reason why you believe it is ethical other than various claims that two wrongs make right. Do you really believe that?
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf