Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Really Prolific?

medo64.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Really Prolific?

#41

Post by manicdee »

josephcsible wrote: post #14
bogantech wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So unlike the FTDI driver that really did brick clone devices this could even be some change that inadvertently causes issues for third party clones. Do people expect them to QA against clones?

Given that the effect of using a clone is that the device name is replaced with the message "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER.", it seems pretty clear that this is intentional sabotage.

Your definition of sabotage is quite broad and creative. There is no damage to the hardware. The driver is simply not operating with hardware that Prolific didn’t get paid to support.

Re: Really Prolific?

#42

Post by manicdee »

josephcsible wrote: post #15
mritun wrote: post #11

Fake and counterfeit chips & products are scourge of our industry. Their shady manufacturers put the customers at risk and put the original manufacturers in an impossible position. I don’t envy the position Prolific is in. Whatever we can do to put the fakers out of business is good!

> Whatever we can do to put the fakers out of business is good! Not if it means hurting innocent third parties, who didn't know the chips were fake and now they're all in the field and not working.

“Innocent” third parties who scored a great deal on discount “Prol1fic” chips on AliBaba?

Provenance is an important part of logistics which you lose as soon as you source parts from third party sites like Amazon, eBay, AliBaba and so forth.

Re: Really Prolific?

#44

Post by manicdee »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #9

Yawn. The author ditched Prolific because the drivers were garbage. They went with FTDI. Then went back to Prolific because FTDI was bricking fake chips. The impression I got is that the author has no intent of even trying to return the counterfeit. Perhaps instead of whinging about the drivers he should be engaging whatever vendors about their subpar supply chain.

Or perhaps investing that effort into writing open source drivers for these chips and providing support for all the various issues the clones have collectively and individually.

Re: Really Prolific?

#45

Post by pjerem »

kalleboo wrote: post #28
xupybd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device. If you run the risk of buying a fake and having it not work then why buy that brand? Buy one that will just work and no risk of bricked fakes. Prolific are harming their brand by doing this. I will now be on alert to avoid their products. Not because I take moral issue with them not allowing me to use fakes, but because I risk getting a…

> The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device Well there wasn't before, but now when the driver alerts you to this fact people can leave 1-star reviews on these devices

At least on Amazon, reviews from all sellers are merged together.

Re: Really Prolific?

#46

Post by kalleboo »

pjerem wrote: post #45
kalleboo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device Well there wasn't before, but now when the driver alerts you to this fact people can leave 1-star reviews on these devices

At least on Amazon, reviews from all sellers are merged together.

The goods are also commingled so hopefully that will teach people to not buy stuff on Amazon since they're likely to get fakes. So win-win.

Re: Really Prolific?

#47

Post by muro »

dathinab wrote: post #20

> For me the concept of bricking device owned by an unsuspected user is a bridge too far. Its also highly illegal, in the EU, at least as far as I know. (Assuming they brick instead of just block the device) It's destruction of the user property, nothing less. If it's "just" deciding to make their driver not work with 3rd party devices then it's legal, though. But highly offensive anyway as even the producer of the d…

Buying or importing clones/fakes is also illegal in the EU.

Re: Really Prolific?

#48

Post by muro »

xeyownt wrote: post #31
mritun wrote: post #11

Fake and counterfeit chips & products are scourge of our industry. Their shady manufacturers put the customers at risk and put the original manufacturers in an impossible position. I don’t envy the position Prolific is in. Whatever we can do to put the fakers out of business is good!

I suggest displaying a banner saying "DO NOT USE CLONE!" every time you use the device. This worked very well for DVDs...

You don't get on the original, only on clones - I think that's a win.

Re: Really Prolific?

#49

Post by josephcsible »

manicdee wrote: post #40
josephcsible wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prolific just doesn't have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers' chips To me, this would excuse a change that was actually somehow beneficial for their own chips and just happened to break clones, but it doesn't excuse a change that does nothing for their own chips and breaks clones on purpose.

It is beneficial for their chips: the driver will work exactly as advertised and tested. The drivers do not break clones on purpose, the drivers simply don’t enable clones to work. Write your own driver if you want to use the clones. It is not Prolific’s job to support hardware they didn’t design, build and test. Even more importantly it is not Prolific’s job to support competitors who are not going to respect Prolif…

But the driver doesn't work any differently for their own chips than the old one did. And this change was definitely, unambiguously, breaking clones on purpose.

Re: Really Prolific?

#50

Post by josephcsible »

manicdee wrote: post #42
josephcsible wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever we can do to put the fakers out of business is good! Not if it means hurting innocent third parties, who didn't know the chips were fake and now they're all in the field and not working.

“Innocent” third parties who scored a great deal on discount “Prol1fic” chips on AliBaba? Provenance is an important part of logistics which you lose as soon as you source parts from third party sites like Amazon, eBay, AliBaba and so forth.

This change isn't punishing the people who scored a great deal on discount “Prol1fic” chips on AliBaba. It's punishing the people whose supplier's supplier's supplier did so.
Post reply on HN