Post by thread:[EE]:Maxim truck hijacked

http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/ This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested, Maxim parts were stolen. You might want to warn your Buyers to source their stuff only through authorized channels. The article reports that the stollen chips could have a failure rate of 30% !! Andrew ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

At 03:11 PM 5/23/2005 -0400, you wrote: >http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/ > >This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck >hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested, >Maxim parts were stolen. By a customer fed up with long lead times? ;-) They've apparently been exported from Malaysia and are for sale elsewhere in Asia. http://in.biz.yahoo.com/050518/138/5yl3v.html You might want to warn your Buyers to source their stuff only through authorized channels. The article reports that the stollen chips could have a failure rate of 30% !! "Could". Hmmm.. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTinterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com ->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff

Maybe they make and test in two different locations?? Wayne -----Original Message----- From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Jordan Sent: 24 May 2005 00:07 To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked On 23 May 2005 at 15:11, Andrew Kieran wrote: > > http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/ > > This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck > hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested, > Maxim parts were stolen. Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts was doing outside the factory?

On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:07:16 -0300, Mark Jordan wrote: > On 23 May 2005 at 15:11, Andrew Kieran wrote: > > > > > http://www.maxim-ic.com/company/hijackedparts/ > > > > This release on Maxim's web site confirms details of a truck > > hijacking in which $2.2 million worth of marked, but untested, > > Maxim parts were stolen. > > Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts > was doing outside the factory? Indeed - I always understood that marking happened after (or as part of) testing, because that's when speed-ratings are determined and then marked. Maybe Maxim only has pass/fail tests rather than any sort of classification, but I'm still suspicious that this is a damage-limitation exercise. Apart form anything else, the only errors that should remain would have been those introduced by the connection and encapsulation - the functioning of the chip would have been established at the wafer stage, because packaging failed chips is an expensive cost for nothing. So the failure rate should be vastly lower than 30%, or they're doing very bad business! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

>-----Original Message----- >From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu] >Sent: 24 May 2005 15:37 >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked > > So the >failure rate should be vastly lower than 30%, or they're doing >very bad business! Might explain the availability problems that their customers are suffering! Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of Michael Rigby-Jones > Sent: 24 May 2005 15:49 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: RE: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked > > Might explain the availability problems that their customers > are suffering! > > Mike > If anyone needs some Maxim parts, i've got a truckload for sale... ;o) (that's a joke by the way. no need to call the feds)

I'm sure it's a real problem for them. If the number is too low, there's little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer. If it's too high, their insurance company won't pay off as well. If it has too many decimal places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention). Frankly, I think they called it too high for believability. Dave Peter wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Hulatt, Jon wrote: > >> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully manufactured >> then i'd say they need to get a better foundry. > > > Or a better pr person who would have said 35.8% for 1.5% more > credibility. > > Peter

At 12:18 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote: >I'm sure it's a real problem for them. If the number is too low, there's >little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer. If it's too high, their >insurance company won't pay off as well. If it has too many decimal >places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious >statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention). > > >Dave They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be as low as zero, perhaps. TI seems eager to 'help': http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/logic/xref_ti-maxim1.pdf >Frankly, I think they called it too high for believability. Yes Best regards, Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" @spam@speffKILLspaminterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com ->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff

> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully > manufactured > then i'd say they need to get a better foundry. If I am not mistaken a chip is normally tested *before* it is put in a housing, so 30% failure of *housed* chips would be rediculous. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

> > If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully > > manufactured > > then i'd say they need to get a better foundry. > > If I am not mistaken a chip is normally tested *before* it is put in a > housing, so 30% failure of *housed* chips would be rediculous. Perhaps the 30% figure is related to handling? I.e., clumsy crooks dragging chips out the back of a truck can reasonably be expected to trash ~30% of them? I'd believe that, if they weren't yet packaged in such a manner as to be shipped to distributors. Maybe. Or maybe it's a case of CYA. Mike H.

Denny Esterline wrote: > Or perhaps they hijacked the truck hauling the rejects to the > landfill? :-) Hmm. Sell your rejects to the insurance company. Better than actually dumping them in the landfill. Works OK as long as Guido and Vinny can keep their mouth shut and nobody asks too many questions about how a couple of losers both ended up with shiny new cars. ***************************************************************** Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:20:24 -0500, Mike Hord wrote: >...< > Perhaps the 30% figure is related to handling? I.e., clumsy crooks > dragging chips out the back of a truck can reasonably be expected > to trash ~30% of them? > > I'd believe that, if they weren't yet packaged in such a manner as to > be shipped to distributors. Maybe. > > Or maybe it's a case of CYA. More likely FUD! :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

On Tue, 24 May 2005, David Minkler wrote: > I'm sure it's a real problem for them. If the number is too low, there's > little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer. If it's too high, their > insurance company won't pay off as well. If it has too many decimal places > in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious statisticians > (and anybody else who is paying attention). Frankly, I think they called it > too high for believability. Maybe they know that the thieves do not work to ISO9000 standards and do not employ static control measures while handling the stuff ;-) Anyway 30% is too round a number to announce for anything hi-tech. Surely they can count to more decimals than that. Peter >> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Hulatt, Jon wrote: >> >>> If maxim have a failure rate of 30% of chips that are fully manufactured >>> then i'd say they need to get a better foundry. >> >> Or a better pr person who would have said 35.8% for 1.5% more credibility. >> >> Peter

Either they(Maxim) are under-estimating the intelligent level of the thief or insulting the recepients of their news. The theives or rather the robbers were desperate but certainly not stupid. Their favorites are Intel CPUs, somehow they managed to target the passanger-cars driven by the FAEs or the Sale-engineers. This tell how much they know and how much they have researched. Ling SM > I'm sure it's a real problem for them. If the number is too low, there's > little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer. If it's too high, their > insurance company won't pay off as well. If it has too many decimal places > in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious statisticians > (and anybody else who is paying attention). Frankly, I think they called it > too high for believability.

In message <KILLspam5.1.1.5.2.20050524154328.04d56450KILLspammail.interlog.com>> Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTinterlog.com> wrote: > TI seems eager to 'help': http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/logic/xref_ti-maxim1.pdf "Here ya go. Just in case you don't want to risk ordering junk, here's our cross-reference list..." ROFL! Later. -- Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB, spamBeGonephilpemspamBeGonephilpem.me.uk | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice, http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI ... I will not steal this tagline, it eez scratched.

In message <002901c560b2$df41e510$0300a8c0@main> TakeThisOuTolin_piclistEraseMEspam_OUTembedinc.com (Olin Lathrop) wrote: > Works OK as long as Guido and Vinny can keep > their mouth shut and nobody asks too many questions about how a couple of > losers both ended up with shiny new cars. I can see it now.. Scene: dark alley alongside factory building "Hey, boy. You's one o' them electronics engineering guys" "Um, yeah...." "Ya wanna buy some MAX232s? 30c on the dollar.." "Not really" "C'mon.. Ya know's ya wants to..." :) Later. -- Phil. | Acorn Risc PC600 Mk3, SA202, 64MB, 6GB, RemoveMEphilpemTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk | ViewFinder, 10BaseT Ethernet, 2-slice, http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | 48xCD, ARCINv6c IDE, SCSI ... Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.

On 5/23/05, Bob Blick <bblickEraseME.....sonic.net> wrote: > > At 02:39 PM 5/23/2005, Bob Blick wrote: > >>500 lots of hot Maxim parts on eBay already: > >> > >>cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7517614991 > > > > Are you implying that these are "hot" as in stolen? > > It was the ad itself that listed them as "hot"! > > :) Bob But they are in the tape... Would Maxim make the chips, package them ship them for testing, open them up, test them and then re package them? I would think that they would have some sort of container that they can reuse rather than tape and reel. -- Jonathan Hallameyer

I completely agree as most manufacturers test the part and then mark them. That's how they separate the low power part from the regular part as the dies are the same. I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility where they test and mark the parts. Regards, -- Chetan Bhargava Web: http://www.bhargavaz.net Blog: http://microz.blogspot.com On 5/23/05, Mark Jordan <EraseMEmarkcpovo.net> wrote: > > Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts > was doing outside the factory?

> I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility > where they test and mark the parts. Just curious - harking back to the question of trying over-clocking an -04 PIC (even though it might actually be quite happy running at > 4MHz as a -20 reject) How intensive is batch testing ? Say you have a bunch of micros made from several wafers. Presumably, ideally, each wafer and subsequent layers would be made of homogeneous material. So (1) if you're working with known, controlled materials why does a batch or part fail to meet spec in the first place (2) if one piece from a batch or base wafer fails, can you assume that the rest of that batch/wafer also will fail. Surely it can't be necessary to test every piece in a high-volume product (3) therefore is a selected sample rigorously tested under all conditions and that assumption made, for whatever reason, for the rest of them

part 1 2452 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii The thieves have been caught but the chips are still at large. Regards. E. D. Sorreta (See attached file: Four held over theft of computer chips.txt) Chetan Bhargava <cbhargava@gmail. To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." com> <RemoveMEpiclistEraseMEEraseMEmit.edu> Sent by: cc: piclist-bounces@m Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked it.edu 26/05/2005 13:57 Please respond to "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." I completely agree as most manufacturers test the part and then mark them. That's how they separate the low power part from the regular part as the dies are the same. I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility where they test and mark the parts. Regards, -- Chetan Bhargava Web: http://www.bhargavaz.net Blog: http://microz.blogspot.com On 5/23/05, Mark Jordan <RemoveMEmarkspam_OUTKILLspamcpovo.net> wrote: > > Yeah, sure. What a truck of 'marked but untested' parts > was doing outside the factory?

On 5/24/05, Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com> wrote: > At 12:18 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote: > >I'm sure it's a real problem for them. If the number is too low, there's > >little hazard to the 'dark gray market' buyer. If it's too high, their > >insurance company won't pay off as well. If it has too many decimal > >places in it, they'll get laughed out of all the circles of serious > >statisticians (and anybody else who is paying attention). > > > > > >Dave > > They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be > as low as zero, perhaps. I'm affraid I see too optimistic thoughts. I can tell you for sure for my own experience that at least MAX477 and MAX1186 have some interesting failure rate... So, a full truck with small parts will have more. As low as zero is impossible. Vasile

Jinx wrote : > How intensive is batch testing ? Say you have a bunch of micros > made from several wafers. Presumably, ideally, each wafer and > subsequent layers would be made of homogeneous material. So > > (1) if you're working with known, controlled materials why does a > batch or part fail to meet spec in the first place > > (2) if one piece from a batch or base wafer fails, can you assume > that the rest of that batch/wafer also will fail. Surely it can't be > necessary to test every piece in a high-volume product > > (3) therefore is a selected sample rigorously tested under > all conditions > and that assumption made, for whatever reason, for the rest of them I can't see why this would be any different from producing just about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made. The methods developed are today known as "MIL-STD-105D". Google for that, and the first hit is : http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section2/pmc231.htm In short, what you do is to first define an AQL for your product. AQL = "Acceptable Quality Level", or the acceptable %-ige of defective products leaving the production. Say an AQL = 0.01 says that one defective out of 10.000 is "OK". Then, using your AQL, you look up in the MIL-STD 105D tables (today computerized, but first on paper) to get your sampling lot size and the number of accepted rejects in the lot. Let's say that you have 100.000 parts batch. The tables could then tell you to sample 100 parts, and that 1 error is OK, but if you get 2 in the sample lot, the whole 100.00 batch is rejected. One thing that is *very* important is that you use a as random sampling from the whole lot as possible. Special random number tables was printed that you used to both decide from which box (or whatever) you should pick your samples, and also at what time of day you should make the sample. I can't see any reason why you can't use statistical sampling inspection on chips also. Jan-Erik.

I understood that the edges of the wafer had worse yield that the centre? D Jinx wrote: {Quote hidden}>>I know that Atmel does that as I have taken a tour of their facility >>where they test and mark the parts. > > > Just curious - harking back to the question of trying over-clocking > an -04 PIC (even though it might actually be quite happy running > at > 4MHz as a -20 reject) > > How intensive is batch testing ? Say you have a bunch of micros > made from several wafers. Presumably, ideally, each wafer and > subsequent layers would be made of homogeneous material. So > > (1) if you're working with known, controlled materials why does a > batch or part fail to meet spec in the first place > > (2) if one piece from a batch or base wafer fails, can you assume > that the rest of that batch/wafer also will fail. Surely it can't be > necessary to test every piece in a high-volume product > > (3) therefore is a selected sample rigorously tested under all conditions > and that assumption made, for whatever reason, for the rest of them >

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > I can't see why this would be any different from producing just > about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during > WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the > resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made. Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things like bombs and fuses? BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad. BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad. Pffft - 398 good 8 bad.... ***************************************************************** Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

> Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of > things like bombs > and fuses? BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad. BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad. > Pffft - 398 > good 8 bad.... Now if only all weapons manufacturers could be forced to use that approach - and testing must of course be done on premises! Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

>-----Original Message----- >From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] >Sent: 26 May 2005 13:36 >To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >Subject: Re: [EE]:Maxim truck hijacked > > >Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: >> I can't see why this would be any different from producing >just about >> anything. Statistical inspection was developed during WW-II when the >> US military found out that they didn't had the resources >(mostly time) >> to test and inspect *every* bomb made. > >Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things >like bombs and fuses? BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad. BOOOM - 398 >good 7 bad. Pffft - 398 good 8 bad.... Coffee meets keyboard.... Olin, you've come out with some gems recently ;) Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

At 07:35 AM 5/26/2005, Olin Lathrop wrote: >Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: >>I can't see why this would be any different from producing just >>about anything. Statistical inspection was developed during >>WW-II when the US military found out that they didn't had the >>resources (mostly time) to test and inspect *every* bomb made. > >Besides, how does one do complete functional testing of things like bombs >and fuses? BOOOM - 397 good 7 bad. BOOOM - 398 good 7 bad. Pffft - 398 >good 8 bad.... Unfortunately, sometimes it's worse than that. Look up the history of the magnetic exploder in WWII US torpedoes. We might as well have sent them out with empty torpedoes for a while, till the sub captains started pulling the appropriate plugs, and finally it got fixed.

Hi Bob. 1. Is it wrong understanding that most expensive part of the small to medium sized chip is the package itself not the silicon dice ? 2. If the package is the most expensive part in the total cost of the chip who whould be stupid enough to pack untested silicon, labeling it and then ship to other facility for "final testing" ? Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues and attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts and same applies to security in Malasia. WBR Dmitry. PS. Kind of curious how Malasian police have determined that hijacked truck indeed left Malasia already ? It might very well be sitting on next door factory for re-labeling to "certified" Maxim released dates. Bob Ammerman wrote: {Quote hidden}> > They did say "up to" 30%. > > It is within the realm of reason to expect that perhaps out of the truck > load of parts that there are a couple of lots that are really bad. In other > words, the truck could have 99.99% good parts, but perhaps the lot of > MAXnnnn chips just had a _very_ bad day. > > Bob Ammerman > RAm Systems > > {Original Message removed}

On 5/27/05, Jinx <joecolquittSTOPspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz> wrote: > > Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues > > and attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts > > and same applies to security in Malasia. > > > > > > WBR Dmitry. > > Dmitry, if "ifs and buts" were fruit and nuts, we'd all have a > Merry Christmas ;-) > > Often it takes something like this to shake a company up - > like people who put an alarm in AFTER they've been burgled Joe, As an alarm designer (fortunately it was a long time ago) I can tell you it's useless to arm the alarm. There is no alarm design which can't be tricked. And BTW, only in NZ is comming the "bad Santa's" We heve here only good Santa's, dogs are walking with sausages in the tails and all we are happy. :) Vasile

{Quote hidden}> Hi Bob. > > 1. Is it wrong understanding that most expensive part of > the small to medium sized chip is the package itself not > the silicon dice ? > > 2. If the package is the most expensive part in the total cost > of the chip who whould be stupid enough to pack untested silicon, > labeling it and then ship to other facility for "final testing" ? > > Maxim PR should hire people with brains not with tongues and > attitude to properly handle such situations. No ifs and buts > and same applies to security in Malasia. > > > WBR Dmitry. > > PS. > Kind of curious how Malasian police have determined that > hijacked truck indeed left Malasia already ? It might very > well be sitting on next door factory for re-labeling to > "certified" Maxim released dates. My guess is that nobody packaged untested silicon, but rather that post-packaging testing wasn't done. I would expect that some small percentage of parts are messed up at the packaging stage, and perhaps this happens in a bursty manner (oops, there was a spot of dust on the lens of the robot vision system that was controlling the wire bonding...) and so a particular batch of a particular component could have problems. Bob Ammerman RAm Systems {Quote hidden}> > > Bob Ammerman wrote: >> >> They did say "up to" 30%. >> >> It is within the realm of reason to expect that perhaps out of the truck >> load of parts that there are a couple of lots that are really bad. In >> other >> words, the truck could have 99.99% good parts, but perhaps the lot of >> MAXnnnn chips just had a _very_ bad day. >> >> Bob Ammerman >> RAm Systems >> >> {Original Message removed}

>My guess is that nobody packaged untested silicon, but >rather that post-packaging testing wasn't done. I would >expect that some small percentage of parts are messed >up at the packaging stage, and perhaps this happens in >a bursty manner (oops, there was a spot of dust on the >lens of the robot vision system that was controlling the >wire bonding...) and so a particular batch of a particular >component could have problems. Sounds reasonable. I guess one could also get a percentage where the bond could be good, but the pressure of forcing the epoxy into the mould either breaks a bond, or finds a weakness in the wire at some point other than the bond, causing a break. As to shipping packaged but untested parts, I guess that the bare chip testing is not full parametric testing, but basic functional tests, and that the full parametric tests occur at a plant with labour which has a higher level of technical expertise (read more expensive) than the assembly plant, so shipping assembled, but non-parametrically tested, chips may well be a viable economic way of doing things.

Spehro Pefhany wrote: > They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be > as low as zero, perhaps. They also didn't say 30% of what... I'm always surprised how much discussion can happen about the actual value of a percentage without anybody knowing the base of that percentage. If I buy one part and it's defective, my failure rate of that part is 100% (at least when using the "popular" meaning of % -- keep in mind that we're not really talking about statistics here :). The failure rate of the lot this part was in probably was something else, the failure rate of the waver batch, of the whole foundry, of the packaging machine, of the manufacturer overall, ... you get the idea. All different average failure rate percentages. So what's the reference of the 30%? The truck load? Give me a break. I don't think they have serious statistics about defect averages in truck loads... :) Then the "could be as high as"... Employing statistics, for any finite selection with finite error rates you get a non-0 probability that there is a failure rate of 100%. And you get a non-0 probability that there is a failure rate up to 30%. So in precise statistical terms, they didn't say squat and just stated the obvious -- yes, the error rate could be as high as 30%, which is something that can be said to have a probability of greater than 0 for any selection of components. To become real, non-obvious information, they would have to have included some more details about their statistic assumptions. Gerhard

At 08:54 AM 5/27/2005, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >Spehro Pefhany wrote: > > > They said "The failure rate could be as high as 30%.". It "could" also be > > as low as zero, perhaps. > >They also didn't say 30% of what... I'm always surprised how much >discussion can happen about the actual value of a percentage without >anybody knowing the base of that percentage. > >If I buy one part and it's defective, my failure rate of that part is 100% >(at least when using the "popular" meaning of % -- keep in mind that we're >not really talking about statistics here :). Indeed, your sample size it statistically meaningless. >Then the "could be as high as"... Employing statistics, for any finite >selection with finite error rates you get a non-0 probability that there is >a failure rate of 100%. I think it's obvious that the high defect rate quoted was intended to deter black market purchasers. Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly untested parts, which seems doubtful.

Dave VanHorn wrote: > I think it's obvious that the high defect rate quoted was intended to > deter black market purchasers. Exactly.... which makes all the discussion about what it means basically meaningless. Technically, it means nothing -- no yield rate for tested, semi-tested or untested batches, wavers, truck loads, nothing. Pure marketing. > Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at > "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly untested > parts, which seems doubtful. Not really an interesting opportunity... probably doesn't make much sense to compare your competitor's marketing noise with your statistical figures. Gerhard

Dave VanHorn wrote: >>> Interesting opportunity for their competition though, to have a look at >>> "raw" output and what Max's yield rates are, if they are truly >>> untested parts, which seems doubtful. >> >>Not really an interesting opportunity... probably doesn't make much sense >>to compare your competitor's marketing noise with your statistical figures. > > I meant by actually getting some of the raw output. Oh, I missed that... but then there's the big "if" you noted. So probably not even there an opportunity. It seems the only opportunity this presented was to have a peek at Maxim's marketing strategies in an unusual situation -- and to get some directed help from competitors regarding compatible replacements :) Gerhard