Maxim Parts Hijacked (and fallout rate)

R

R Adsett

Guest
A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
 
R Adsett wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Probably the parts were stolen by a frustrated customer that could
Click to expand...
not get the parts any other way...
..and that fallout rate shows the high quality of their fab areas....
 
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Whatever happened to "the quality goes in before the name goes on".
;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Click to expand...

It's owned by Lucky Goldstar. :-(

Now its, "Quality? Get the hell out of here!"

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:14:50 -0400, the renowned R Adsett
<radsett@junk.aeolusdevelopment.cm> wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to "the quality goes in before the name goes on".
;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
 
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:40:04 +0000, Robert Baer wrote:

R Adsett wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Probably the parts were stolen by a frustrated customer that could
not get the parts any other way...
..and that fallout rate shows the high quality of their fab areas....
Click to expand...
Not really. It shows that the package is a small part of the cost.

--
Keith
 
keith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:40:04 +0000, Robert Baer wrote:


R Adsett wrote:


A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert

Probably the parts were stolen by a frustrated customer that could
not get the parts any other way...
..and that fallout rate shows the high quality of their fab areas....


Not really. It shows that the package is a small part of the cost.

Fairchild, National Semiconductor, Signetics and other reputable IC
Click to expand...
makers do their best to create a reliable design and high *wafer* yield.
Extensive testing and correlation is done so that data sheet
parameters that cannot be (directly) tested at wafer sort is reasonably
guaranteed by some test(s) that can be done at wafer sort.
In the case of "jelly bean" parts, wafer yield has usually been
rather close to theoretical maximum (ie: take into account any secant
cuts, incomplete die at edge, and poor masking at edge due to curvature).
Only parts that pass wafer sort are then packaged and tested; no
flim-flam about sending them to another planet before final test.
Failure analysis of the rare final test rejects almost always show
assembly problems.
so, like i said, 30 percent final test rejection rate shows the high
quality of their fab areas [NOT].
 
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:40:04 +0000, Robert Baer wrote:

R Adsett wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled
before they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Probably the parts were stolen by a frustrated customer that could
not get the parts any other way...
..and that fallout rate shows the high quality of their fab areas....

Not really. It shows that the package is a small part of the cost.
Click to expand...
Not really. Packaging and Tesing is e substantial part of the costs...

--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
 
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:14:50 -0400, R Adsett
<radsett@junk.aeolusdevelopment.cm> wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled before
they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Click to expand...
Funny they that didn't include the list of part numbers and date codes
in the news release, if they were marked..

RL
 
Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:

Not really. It shows that the package is a small part of the cost.

Fairchild, National Semiconductor, Signetics and other reputable IC
makers do their best to create a reliable design and high *wafer* yield.
Extensive testing and correlation is done so that data sheet
parameters that cannot be (directly) tested at wafer sort is reasonably
guaranteed by some test(s) that can be done at wafer sort.
In the case of "jelly bean" parts, wafer yield has usually been
rather close to theoretical maximum (ie: take into account any secant
cuts, incomplete die at edge, and poor masking at edge due to curvature).
Only parts that pass wafer sort are then packaged and tested; no
flim-flam about sending them to another planet before final test.
Failure analysis of the rare final test rejects almost always show
assembly problems.
so, like i said, 30 percent final test rejection rate shows the high
quality of their fab areas [NOT].
Click to expand...
When I was in the business you sure didn't want to waste money packaging
bad die and you symbolised after packaged testing. I can just about buy
logistical reasons for symbolising packages before testing.

The 30% only shows something if you believe it. Sounds more like hype to
scare potential customers away from the stolen product. Just like all
counterfeit software is claimed to contain viri.
 
In article <d4ib51$c87$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de says...
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:40:04 +0000, Robert Baer wrote:

R Adsett wrote:

A pointer to a recent article I just saw,

http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI

As interesting as the prospect of fake parts showing up was, I thought,
the note on the fallout rate and that the parts are fully labelled
before they are finished testing.

I don't usually notes on what the actual device fallout rate is.

Robert
Probably the parts were stolen by a frustrated customer that could
not get the parts any other way...
..and that fallout rate shows the high quality of their fab areas....

Not really. It shows that the package is a small part of the cost.

Not really. Packaging and Tesing is e substantial part of the costs...
Click to expand...
Post-packaging testing is often cheaper (and better) than pre-package
testing. If the cost of the package is low enough, it's often better
to test after since a final test is needed anyway (sometimes after
burn-in). Sometimes both are needed to find the lowest overall cost.
A 30% gross fallout (wafer to final test) isn't unheard of. I know
some people who would be quite happy with 70% final yield. ;-)

--
Keith
 
legg wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:14:50 -0400, R Adsett... wrote:
....
http://email.electronicnews.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/elrM0KC14Q0DbD0CTYZ0EI
....
Funny they that didn't include the list of part numbers and date codes
in the news release, if they were marked..
Click to expand...
Maxim's webpage http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/
has links to a list, in pdf or csv. Eg,
http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/hijacked_parts_22april.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top