11–20 of 315 posts
I wonder if Windows will pull the driver.
Ouch, something tells me the Arduino, Raspberry Pi, etc. forums are going to be full of people that are confused why they can't talk to their device anymore. IMHO it's pretty bad to target the consumers who probably don't even know or care that there's an FTDI chip in their device. Certainly am not condoning piracy of the chips, but wonder if there's a better way of handling the situation than breaking everyone.
The workaround once your chip has been flashed by the new driver is modifying the driver to communicate with devices that have a PID of 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. That is seriously uncool. I'd never even heard of FTDI before but they can rest assured that if I ever need a USB-to-UART chip that FTDI won't be the company I choose to buy. FTDI's drivers refusing to work with the fake parts is understandable, purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't.
> purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't Dumb question maybe, but why?
Simply refusing to work - perhaps logging something to the event log about counterfeit products - would be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. That is seriously uncool. I'd never even heard of FTDI before but they can rest assured that if I ever need a USB-to-UART chip that FTDI won't be the company I choose to buy. FTDI's drivers refusing to work with the fake parts is understandable, purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't.
> purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't Dumb question maybe, but why?
FTDI have been anti-consumer for years - their last several drivers have introduced intentional instability and Code 10 errors for suspected counterfeit devices. I think this is totally crappy. I see what they're trying to do (create market incentive for consumers to insist on real FTDI chips) but the reality is that it's just screwing over innocent consumers who buy a device.
It's been about 5 years and they've still yet to actually fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. That is seriously uncool. I'd never even heard of FTDI before but they can rest assured that if I ever need a USB-to-UART chip that FTDI won't be the company I choose to buy. FTDI's drivers refusing to work with the fake parts is understandable, purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't.
> purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't Dumb question maybe, but why?
Takeaway lesson: End users should never touch anything remotely FTDI-like, since it's probably impossible to verify if the device is genuine or not. Wonder if FTDI thought this through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. That is seriously uncool. I'd never even heard of FTDI before but they can rest assured that if I ever need a USB-to-UART chip that FTDI won't be the company I choose to buy. FTDI's drivers refusing to work with the fake parts is understandable, purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't.
> purposely reprogramming them to make them non-functional isn't Dumb question maybe, but why?
To a first approximation, all code eventually runs. Relatedly, never put an error message into your product you wouldn't want customers to see, because they will.