[robomartin]

> 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.

[teraflop]

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.

[robomartin]

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?

[kd5bjo]

Your example is also off, because we’re talking about an internal component rather than an entire device. If a repair shop doesn’t use a Genuine Apple replacement screen, does Apple have to support it? No. Is going out of their way to physically destroy these replacement screens anti-consumer behavior? Yes.

A key point here is that it’s impossible for the malicious driver to know what representation the seller made to the consumer— the presence of a nonoriginal part doesn’t necessarily mean there was any fraud involved.

Edit to add:

> ... 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.

Only after obtaining a court order to that effect. Destroying someone else’s property without due process is generally not acceptable, regardless of how right you are. To step away from technology for a moment, is it ok for a glassmaker to go around town breaking windows because they’re allegedly made with counterfeit glass?

[robomartin]

Read my comment about how there are at least two separable problems in this issue. Perhaps then my position will make sense to you. Continuing to argue through hypothetical examples is pointless, it's getting sillier and sillier and farther away from key issues.

Counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. It costs jobs. It costs progress. It costs entire industries. Don't blame the victim. Consumers just happen to be caught in the middle of what, at the end of the day, is a political mess.

One could argue consumers are the victims of politicians and their terrible policies. That's where this gets complicated and we could end-up understanding that the FTDI problem has its genesis a decade or two ago.

I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? Shut down and let the fakes take the market? What would happen to quality, reliability and support then? A business like FTDI doesn't run on pink unicorns. If fakes destroy their market they are out, a bunch of people lose their jobs and good luck with support for any chip or predictable performance and quality from anyone.

The choices we make have consequences in the short and long term. This is just a microcosm of what the world has allowed China to get away with.

[kd5bjo]

> I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do?

I’m not saying that FTDI or a similar company should sit idly by, but the vigilante justice you’re advocating leads to bad places. We have customs enforcement to stop goods at the border and a court system to deal with internal disputes; use them.

[IAmEveryone]

> I ask again: In what alternate reality

In that alternative reality where, for example, mobile phone carriers are required to allow 911 calls even if your account is otherwise locked because you fraudulently paid with someone else's credit card.