Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I've purchased what I thought was an industrial spec microcontroller board from a legitimate and respected supplier, through Farnell, and it had a counterfeit FTDI chip on it.

I built that board into a piece of test equipment that's likely to be used for 5 or 10 years. Fortunately this whole saga happened while I was still developing it - if their chip bricking driver had been released a year later, I'd probably not have known about it. Someone would connect the test PC to Windows Update in 3 years time, and the device would stop working.

Counterfeit chips are a reality, and not one that people building devices on a small scale can properly mitigate against. Not buying chips on alibaba is common sense, but not buying pre-built modules from Farnell? If you're not going to buy them from Farnell, where are you going to buy them from?




I'm not disputing that you can easily get a counterfeit chip without it being your fault.

But why do you simply accept that? Have you even complained to Farnell?

Read the sundry web forums, very few people complain to their distributor. Everyone bitches about FTDI.

And that's what's really bugging me here. In the FTDI case the problem has obviously gotten out of hand. I can totally understand that the manufacturer wants to get tougher.


The problem is that FTDI ist taking it out on the customer, and hoping that "the FTDI driver bricked my board" somehow gets those customers to (1) realize that the problem is a counterfeit chip, (2) work their way up the supply chain until they find the party at fault (or get the supply chain to take care of the problem), and (3) manage to get a replacement for the product which uses genuine FTDI chips.

Why not just pop up a small window with a message "Hey, this product seems to contain counterfeit chips. Please tell us where you bought it so that _we_ can take care of the problem."


Just FYI, but displaying a Message Box from the context of a Windows device driver is not trivial and would add significant overhead to the driver.

I'd prefer it if FTDI weren't utter douchebags around this whole ordeal. I understand they have to make money, but since when is it a problem when devices are API-compatible with existing device drivers? As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather common and generally beneficial thing.


That's because FTDI has taken the approach of fucking as many people that didn't actually do anything wrong to somehow punish the counterfeiters. How does bricking something sold 4 years ago do anything helpful?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: