A message inserted into the data stream is not adequate. Many would never actually see that. It needs to be a standard OS error message window. If that's actually possible with a basic device driver, then why didn't FTDI do that?.
Personally I'll just stick with the 2012 drivers that still work fine, since none of the newer versions seem to have any real benefits for the end user. I probably won't be purchasing products that use FTDI chips in the future because it seems to be the only way of avoiding the problems they insist on causing.
Thing is, most of them won't be FTDI customers anyway. They are too price sensitive. Most likely remedy will be another device, or ongoing hacks to continue what they have.
FTDI is fine with their other legit competition. What they don't want is their brand, chips and good software to be associated with fraudsters who may or may not meet the quality expectations associated with FTDI.
I haven't seen a single comment out there discussing both price and how they love FTDI. People who are less price sensitive, for whatever reasons, are unlikely to even notice this, due to their supply being legit, and would recommend on quality, etc... which is highly desirable to FTDI.
TL;DR - FTDI isn't losing sweat over non customer problems.
Guys, let's please drop this discussion. Parallax products use FTDI chips and this is a support forum for Parallax products. It is not necessary or helpful to others to announce your intentions not to buy our products using legitimate FTDI chips that do not have these issues. Please, let's move on to more productive discussions. :nerd:
It is not necessary or helpful to others to announce your intentions not to buy our products using legitimate FTDI chips that do not have these issues. Please, let's move on to more productive discussions. :nerd:
I did not see anyone say that. and this thread is already sinking.
Your post is however, a good example of the 'collateral damage' FTDI is driving out there.
I probably won't be purchasing products that use FTDI chips in the future because it seems to be the only way of avoiding the problems they insist on causing.
Nonetheless I feel the collateral damage is occurring here where we're allowing this to propagate. This is why I asked to discontinue this debate.
I probably won't be purchasing products that use FTDI chips in the future because it seems to be the only way of avoiding the problems they insist on causing.
Ah, ok, that does not mention Parallax, and I took that to mean Bridge-level products, where there is an open choice.
Here, I now avoid designing in FTDI where alternatives exist,(SiLabs and EXAR are now ahead in the list), but I do not avoid buying mainstream products with them in.
( I probably would avoid an eBay programmer dongle)
In some cases, I actively seek FTDI, as their FT2232H part brings good performance to a CPLD/FPGA eval system.
This is not hot phones being sold in a pub somewhere.
What the customer pays for here, is not a stolen goods.
Why should FTDI foot the bill to help a competitor deliver a correctly working product? It's not their responsibility. Consumers have recourse against the company that sold them faulty merchandise in the first place. There is no remedy expected from the party that has had its goods stolen -- and that's what it is: low-ball competitors who are leveraging someone else's effort, and profiting by not having to spend for licensed software, or develop their own.
Please, let's move on to more productive discussions. :nerd:
This really is a productive discussion (as long as it remains civil). It points out why buying low-ball clones is no savings. Or at least, some savings with potential headaches. The forum is full of posts about "great buys" from eBay -- some of which impact Parallax's offerings -- and this points up why these deals aren't always so great. Consider it a type of public service announcement!
A message inserted into the data stream is not adequate. Many would never actually see that. It needs to be a standard OS error message window. If that's actually possible with a basic device driver, then why didn't FTDI do that?.
Personally I'll just stick with the 2012 drivers that still work fine, since none of the newer versions seem to have any real benefits for the end user. I probably won't be purchasing products that use FTDI chips in the future because it seems to be the only way of avoiding the problems they insist on causing.
well it isn't.
A driver has no access to the GUI. Full Stop.
FTDI could provide a GUI Application to run as background task to query the driver for messages to display or something like that, but the driver by itself can NOT pop up a message box.
And who wants to run another application all the time if not needed?
I am not even sure if a driver can write into the event log, so besides just not working or not working and sending a message in the stream, I prefer the later one.
Easy way to check for genuine FTDI devices: Plug in and open Terminal window, non genuine will tell so ...
And it is not FTDI causing the troubles, the copy-cats out of wherever are causing the troubles by faking and claiming to be a FTDI produced device. The VID is a vendor-Id, stating that this product is made by FTDI, which it isn't.
So if somebody sells you a Mercedes Benz rebadged with a lot of AMG and Sport and V12 stickers, and you neither have a V12, nor is it AMG and you do not have that sport package, is this the fault of Mercedes Benz or AMG? Or would you blame the seller for it (or yourself?)
Or even better - a BMW rebadged as AMG Mercedes Benz and the MB Service Station does not provide you with some service?
It's quite possible that in all good faith one pays top dollar for genuine parts and still ends up with clones. Policing supply chains is not trivial.
I'm aware, but I'd wager far more of the fakes are known to the OEMs. They thought they'd get the same thing for less, and now it's biting them on the rear. Now, they could swear they thought they were buying legit parts, and if that's true, there are lawyers who know how to sue in Chinese courts.
I would agree, though I haven't been hit with this issue.
What should happen is the greedy OEM's get hit with returns and worse, which they take out on their suppliers one way or the other.
Everyone from the consumer up feels the pain. For the consumer's it sucks, and they have to pay or figure out on their own how to back out the new driver and get the older working one. But they take it out on the Manf., and frankly that causes me no heartburn in the leas.t
The Manf are as aware as the average tinkerer that there are counterfeits out there, and they are the one
who are ultimately responsible for insuring that they are practicing their due diligence.
They aren't 'fooled' or anything like that, they are getting the lowest cost they can, and either taking their chances or their internal processes/people aren't doing their job.
They deserve any and all backlash they get.
The people buying $2-3 Nano's get burned, and thats fine too. Its a fixable issue for most of them, and its not like they were unaware that they were getting a dodgy clone at the price they got it for.
Blaming FTDI in THIS instance, is wrong.
Just making the device stop working would be stupid.
The internet would be full of FTDI bashing for driver cockup, and make it an issue of FTDI failing.
In THIS case, they took a Serial Device, and made it output a very clear message that the device is not an FTDI device.
Geez, at some point, if you are being robbed you do have the right to respond. If someone were ripping off the work of some in these forums, I think the POV would change rather quickly.
I say we need to see more of this, so that Manf's actually start validating their supply chains so the customer is getting what they are paying for.
Its not just stupid serial chips, this counterfeiting racket has already cost people their lives, homes burned down, etc.
FTDI has probably been losing millions over the years to this, and even after the last incident it seems like nothing has changed.
It points out why buying low-ball clones is no savings.
I have less sympathy for someone who did buy what you call "low-ball clones", but you wrongly presume all impacted customers are in that basket.
In the real world, there are many other ways counterfeit parts can end up in products.
Can you give some links to what you call "low-ball clones" ?
Comments
Personally I'll just stick with the 2012 drivers that still work fine, since none of the newer versions seem to have any real benefits for the end user. I probably won't be purchasing products that use FTDI chips in the future because it seems to be the only way of avoiding the problems they insist on causing.
Thing is, most of them won't be FTDI customers anyway. They are too price sensitive. Most likely remedy will be another device, or ongoing hacks to continue what they have.
FTDI is fine with their other legit competition. What they don't want is their brand, chips and good software to be associated with fraudsters who may or may not meet the quality expectations associated with FTDI.
I haven't seen a single comment out there discussing both price and how they love FTDI. People who are less price sensitive, for whatever reasons, are unlikely to even notice this, due to their supply being legit, and would recommend on quality, etc... which is highly desirable to FTDI.
TL;DR - FTDI isn't losing sweat over non customer problems.
I did not see anyone say that. and this thread is already sinking.
Your post is however, a good example of the 'collateral damage' FTDI is driving out there.
Nonetheless I feel the collateral damage is occurring here where we're allowing this to propagate. This is why I asked to discontinue this debate.
Here, I now avoid designing in FTDI where alternatives exist,(SiLabs and EXAR are now ahead in the list), but I do not avoid buying mainstream products with them in.
( I probably would avoid an eBay programmer dongle)
In some cases, I actively seek FTDI, as their FT2232H part brings good performance to a CPLD/FPGA eval system.
Why should FTDI foot the bill to help a competitor deliver a correctly working product? It's not their responsibility. Consumers have recourse against the company that sold them faulty merchandise in the first place. There is no remedy expected from the party that has had its goods stolen -- and that's what it is: low-ball competitors who are leveraging someone else's effort, and profiting by not having to spend for licensed software, or develop their own.
This really is a productive discussion (as long as it remains civil). It points out why buying low-ball clones is no savings. Or at least, some savings with potential headaches. The forum is full of posts about "great buys" from eBay -- some of which impact Parallax's offerings -- and this points up why these deals aren't always so great. Consider it a type of public service announcement!
well it isn't.
A driver has no access to the GUI. Full Stop.
FTDI could provide a GUI Application to run as background task to query the driver for messages to display or something like that, but the driver by itself can NOT pop up a message box.
And who wants to run another application all the time if not needed?
I am not even sure if a driver can write into the event log, so besides just not working or not working and sending a message in the stream, I prefer the later one.
Easy way to check for genuine FTDI devices: Plug in and open Terminal window, non genuine will tell so ...
And it is not FTDI causing the troubles, the copy-cats out of wherever are causing the troubles by faking and claiming to be a FTDI produced device. The VID is a vendor-Id, stating that this product is made by FTDI, which it isn't.
So if somebody sells you a Mercedes Benz rebadged with a lot of AMG and Sport and V12 stickers, and you neither have a V12, nor is it AMG and you do not have that sport package, is this the fault of Mercedes Benz or AMG? Or would you blame the seller for it (or yourself?)
Or even better - a BMW rebadged as AMG Mercedes Benz and the MB Service Station does not provide you with some service?
Why should they and why should FTDI do that?
curious.
Mike
I would agree, though I haven't been hit with this issue.
What should happen is the greedy OEM's get hit with returns and worse, which they take out on their suppliers one way or the other.
Everyone from the consumer up feels the pain. For the consumer's it sucks, and they have to pay or figure out on their own how to back out the new driver and get the older working one. But they take it out on the Manf., and frankly that causes me no heartburn in the leas.t
The Manf are as aware as the average tinkerer that there are counterfeits out there, and they are the one
who are ultimately responsible for insuring that they are practicing their due diligence.
They aren't 'fooled' or anything like that, they are getting the lowest cost they can, and either taking their chances or their internal processes/people aren't doing their job.
They deserve any and all backlash they get.
The people buying $2-3 Nano's get burned, and thats fine too. Its a fixable issue for most of them, and its not like they were unaware that they were getting a dodgy clone at the price they got it for.
Blaming FTDI in THIS instance, is wrong.
Just making the device stop working would be stupid.
The internet would be full of FTDI bashing for driver cockup, and make it an issue of FTDI failing.
In THIS case, they took a Serial Device, and made it output a very clear message that the device is not an FTDI device.
Geez, at some point, if you are being robbed you do have the right to respond. If someone were ripping off the work of some in these forums, I think the POV would change rather quickly.
I say we need to see more of this, so that Manf's actually start validating their supply chains so the customer is getting what they are paying for.
Its not just stupid serial chips, this counterfeiting racket has already cost people their lives, homes burned down, etc.
FTDI has probably been losing millions over the years to this, and even after the last incident it seems like nothing has changed.
In the real world, there are many other ways counterfeit parts can end up in products.
Can you give some links to what you call "low-ball clones" ?
Good interview.
Low ball clones are generally identified as are losses.
There is a grey area where that is not true, yet requirements remain serious. It is not on FTDI to manage that risk.