Author here. I did consider this, as others have reported getting ADS1015 marked as ADS1115. If it were an ADS1015 the readout would be truncated at 12 bits. These parts definitely delivered 16 bits of readout.
I worry about the demo boards being radically different in terms of layout etc. Even if you're using the same interface and power supply, the PCB may be affecting performance.
Getting full spec performance out of an ADC requires having good layout power supply routing etc.
I would transplant the chips from PCB A to PCB B and vice versa. See if the performance follows the chip or the PCB.
Also check power consumption before / after board swaps. If they are fakes, that would be significantly different.
Analogy's datasheet is directly cribbed from TI's (see TI Fig. 7-7 / Analogy Fig. 22½, pg. 18).
This already passes my "run away screaming" threshold for trust, but a decapping would help me understand whether they've stolen the physical design (bad) or just cloned it (bad).
"Stealing" the physical design is legal after 10 years in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...), or 20 years if there's a patent, and that's how we avoided having a single giant company own everything and halt innovation forever in the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. So I would say that stealing the physical design is good.
(I guess it was also important that at the time it was illegal for one company to own another, which was a significant obstacle to the rise of conglomerates like Standard Oil.)
What's wrong with cloning a chip functionality-wise? This is basically how the industry has operated since its infancy, and what gave us jelly bean logic parts and transistors, x86 and the PC revolution, ...
(just talking about the cloning part here, not counterfeit markings or datasheet copyright infringement, or copying mask work)
If it's an open clone that can be reasonably distinguished from software side and from looking at the part and it doesn't violate IP laws other than software patents, no biggie.
Every clone of any sufficiently complex Thing will have subtle quirks and edge cases compared to the original and as long as I can work around them for only that specific clone model, that's easy.
But clones that have no way of determining if the part is a clone? That's bad to even exist because unscrupulous actors will go and repackage "legitimate clone" chips into faked originals if the price difference is big enough.
There's nothing wrong with an open clone when everybody is acting in good faith. (In fact, "good faith" does not even necessarily mean "according to the letter of the law in $jurisdiction". Sometimes the law is an ass.)
However, there's nothing more toxic to an OEM than a vendor relationship founded on dishonesty. I know I shouldn't trust them, they know it too, and even if it seems advantageous at first I shouldn't be surprised when they turn on me.
Since these parts are being sold as genuine TI parts, I don't care whether the clone is physically faithful or just functionally faithful - I should treat it like it's poisonous.
Apparently you haven't seen what the datasheets of 7805 regulators look like; or to use a far more complex example, LCD controllers. I do find it amusing that AnalogySemi's datasheet uses basically the same fonts as Linear Technology's, but copy-paste is the norm in the industry, and many companies will require that parts in their design always have a second-source manufacturer, if not more.
And how much of that 75nm feature is getting picked up by a diamond stylus? The stylii used in metrology grade surface roughness and contour analyzers can't pick up features even remotely close to that size and those are far finer and more sensitive that a turntables stylus.
This happened to Lance Armstrong. As one investigator put it, his 1999 urine was meant to pass the drugs tests available in 1999. But when subjected to tests developed 5 years later, it failed.
Entirely false in that it is indeed a completely valid combination. See luminescent pixels in the Porter Duff paper. It represents a pixel that has no occlusion and is emitting.
It's hard. Because everyone claims to be doing TDD, just asking in the interview "do you do TDD" is pointless.
Example. Last year I consulted at an IC company, building a huge "moon-shot" chip. You might expect TDD to be an absolute certainty in such an operation. Not so, individuals had all sorts of justifications for not doing TDD.
Here is one idea. In the technical interviews, when the inevitable "and do you have any questions for me?" moment comes up, ask them to talk about their best test.
If they have a good answer, it's likely you've found somewhere that genuinely values TDD.
I agree with this. I've interviewed a lot of people recently for a senior developer role. The difference in people's ideas of what TDD or testing in general, is quite marked.
I love it when people ask me about how we test. I can tell you the pains we've had with tying our tests too tightly with implementation. :D
Yes, ICs age. Fissures in the subtrate expand with each thermal cycle. Delamination is a similar effect. That's how manufacturers prematurely age their parts -- by endless cycles in the oven.
The biggest culprit is flash memory. It's in almost everything, and has a much shorter life than the 10 years most manufacturers claim.
