3 ms·
> In countries that respect IP this isn't a problem. I don't disagree with you, but you can't ignore the realities of the world. One of those is that almost al
by deelowe 11y ago
> In countries that respect IP this isn't a problem.
I don't disagree with you, but you can't ignore the realities of the world. One of those is that almost all electronics are made in these regions (fake and genuine). This is why supply chain control is very difficult in these places. Additionally, supply chain control is not my problem to solve. It's the vendor's (FTDI).
> Dell didn't need to buy FTDI to have the nightmarish capacitor plague issue.
None of those issues were created intentionally by a reputable company. Dell didn't intentionally start building bad caps. It was due to a QA process gap at a fairly reputable capacitor manufacturer. It was a mistake... In this case, FTDI is doing this on purpose. It's totally reasonable to blame FTDI for a problem they created.
- sokoloff 11y agoI think GP's point was the capacitor issue was still a corporate IP issue. A (tampered) formula for electrolytic capacitor dielectric was stolen and the resulting capacitors were prone to premature failure. I don't see that as a "QA process gap".
- deelowe 11y agoDell didn't intentionally create that issue. They simply should have been performing better HALT to ensure they had coverage for bad caps. That's the qa escape. In this case, there is no way to test for this as ftdi doesn't provide any way to do so. They simply break stuff after the fact. The only way to prevent this from happening is to not use ftdi branded parts.