undefined | Better HN

0 pointsteruakohatu5y ago0 comments

> I strongly disagree with this. I see no way to rationalize that a company should be responsible for ensuring that counterfeit devices work correctly

They destroyed devices that worked perfectly well, but maybe (or maybe not) had a fake FTDI branding on a chip inside the device.

Even the manufacturer may have been a victim of commingled inventory. For this reason I stopped buying anything with FTDI in it, because I didn't want to take the chance it would be bricked because the smalltime seller on Tindie.com bought from a bad supplier.

I would hate to think what you would have Apple do to Hackintosh hardware.

0 comments

robomartin5y ago

> I would hate to think what you would have Apple do to Hackintosh hardware.

You are looking at it precisely backwards. The key question here goes something like this:

Is Apple responsible for ensuring that fakes function correctly as it issues software updates for its own hardware?

In other words, just because someone decided to make a Hackintosh or a fake iPhone is Apple now instantly saddled with having to support this hardware for the lifetime of the fake products? And this is the case whether there's just one clone or 100 different variants?

As I have asked others, in what alternate reality does this make any sense?

My guess is that none of you have ever designed or manufactured hardware products at scale and don't fully comprehend the implications of what you so vehemently believe. No hardware manufacturer would ever take the side of having to ensure fakes work correctly; this would be sheer insanity.

teraflop5y ago

Nobody's complaining that FTDI didn't make their drivers compatible with counterfeit hardware. They're complaining that FTDI deliberately took actions in their driver code to damage any supposedly counterfeit devices that were plugged into a system.

To use your example, imagine if Apple released an update to iOS that would scan any jailbroken iPhones on the same network, and if it detected one, would use a backdoor to send it malware that wipes the device's bootloader.

robomartin5y ago

One bad example after another. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp.

The proper example would be fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely.

I ask again: In what alternate reality would Apple be required to allow fake iPhones, look the other way and just let them be?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsteruakohatu5y ago0 comments

> I strongly disagree with this. I see no way to rationalize that a company should be responsible for ensuring that counterfeit devices work correctly

They destroyed devices that worked perfectly well, but maybe (or maybe not) had a fake FTDI branding on a chip inside the device.

I would hate to think what you would have Apple do to Hackintosh hardware.

0 comments

robomartin5y ago

> I would hate to think what you would have Apple do to Hackintosh hardware.

You are looking at it precisely backwards. The key question here goes something like this:

Is Apple responsible for ensuring that fakes function correctly as it issues software updates for its own hardware?

As I have asked others, in what alternate reality does this make any sense?

teraflop5y ago

robomartin5y ago

One bad example after another. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp.

I ask again: In what alternate reality would Apple be required to allow fake iPhones, look the other way and just let them be?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse