Coilcraft disconintues use of Remote Approach (Was : Documen

I sent a polite but firm missive to Coilcraft over their use of remote
approach which 'calls home' any time a PDF is opened.

My original missive is:

<<
Dear Coilcraft

I am the principal design engineer of an electronics OEM company in the
UK (that company shall remain nameless). Your use of remote approach on
new datasheets is repugnant as nowhere does it tell me the datasheet,
when opened, will atempt to track my reading of the datasheet.

I have decided that as you have been underhanded (by adding 'call home'
attributes without telling me about it), I shall delete CoilCraft from
my approved vendor list for all new designs, and design your parts out
completely if possible in existing designs.

Your comments are appreciated.

PS

Their webmaster responded thus:
<<
Peter,

We experimented with the Remote Approach system but stopped using it.
Unfortunately, some PDF documents with the code are "out there" in
the field.

I understand your concern and apologize for the inconvenience. If you
tell me which data sheet you have, I will send you a replacement and
make sure that we are not inadvertently still distributing these.

I am in the office today, so I can respond to you immediately.

Regards,

John Stellberg

One can only wonder why they tried then discontinued. Perhaps they
found designers did not like it, but I really do not know.

So, if you have an 'infected document', email
jstellberg_remove-this-antispam-AT-coilcraft-DONTSPAM-dotcom and he
will provide an uninfected replacement.

Remove the obviously misformed parts.
Cheers

PeteS

In article <1134248540.020915.73800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
ps@fleetwoodmobile.com says...

One can only wonder why they tried then discontinued. Perhaps they
found designers did not like it, but I really do not know.

So, if you have an 'infected document', email
jstellberg_remove-this-antispam-AT-coilcraft-DONTSPAM-dotcom and he
will provide an uninfected replacement.

Remove the obviously misformed parts.
Cheers

PeteS

Coilcraft have always seemed like a decent bunch to me. Did you ever
get clarification on the reason for their use of that feature?

If the purpose is to check to see if an updated data sheet or errata
page is available at the time you open the document, I'm not going to
complain too loudly over that. Some digital devices have data sheets
hundreds of pages long that are frequently revised and corrected, and
you DON'T want to work from an obsolete copy. Not likely to be the case
with SMT inductors, I guess, but still... where's the harm?

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

John Miles wrote:

In article <1134248540.020915.73800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
ps@fleetwoodmobile.com says...

One can only wonder why they tried then discontinued. Perhaps they
found designers did not like it, but I really do not know.

So, if you have an 'infected document', email
jstellberg_remove-this-antispam-AT-coilcraft-DONTSPAM-dotcom and he
will provide an uninfected replacement.

Remove the obviously misformed parts.
Cheers

PeteS



Coilcraft have always seemed like a decent bunch to me. Did you ever
get clarification on the reason for their use of that feature?
John told me this:

<< The 0201CS is one of the products that we're somewhat paranoid
about. >>
Now I can understand that, as a hardware designer. The solution used
was simply a mis-step, perhaps.

Cheers

PeteS

If the purpose is to check to see if an updated data sheet or errata
page is available at the time you open the document, I'm not going to
complain too loudly over that. Some digital devices have data sheets
hundreds of pages long that are frequently revised and corrected, and
you DON'T want to work from an obsolete copy. Not likely to be the case
with SMT inductors, I guess, but still... where's the harm?

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

I'm John Stellberg, Marketing Communications Manager at Coilcraft. Pete
and I have been communicating regarding this issue and I explained that
we had experimented with Remote Approach in an effort to prevent data
on 3 or 4 of our very newest products out of the hands of competitors.
Coilcraft isn't fond of being the R&D department for countless Asian
coilwinders.

I pulled the plug on our use of Remote Approach because of the security
concerns it raised with our customers and the realization that, even if
I did find that data had been routed to a competitor, the horse was
already out of the barn at that point.

There are perhaps 20 - 30 copies of tagged documents out there, and on
Monday we will be notifying recipients and sending replacement copies
without the Remote Approach code.

To anyone who has been inconvenienced or offended by this, I apologize.

Regards,

===============================

John Stellberg
Director of Marketing Communications
COILCRAFT

+1-847-516-7322
Fax +1-847-639-1469
jstellberg@coilcraft.com

1102 Silver Lake Road
Cary IL 60013

jstellberg@coilcraft.com wrote:

Hello all,

I'm John Stellberg, Marketing Communications Manager at Coilcraft. Pete
and I have been communicating regarding this issue and I explained that
we had experimented with Remote Approach in an effort to prevent data
on 3 or 4 of our very newest products out of the hands of competitors.
Coilcraft isn't fond of being the R&D department for countless Asian
coilwinders.

I pulled the plug on our use of Remote Approach because of the security
concerns it raised with our customers and the realization that, even if
I did find that data had been routed to a competitor, the horse was
already out of the barn at that point.

There are perhaps 20 - 30 copies of tagged documents out there, and on
Monday we will be notifying recipients and sending replacement copies
without the Remote Approach code.

To anyone who has been inconvenienced or offended by this, I apologize.

Regards,

===============================

John Stellberg
Director of Marketing Communications
COILCRAFT

+1-847-516-7322
Fax +1-847-639-1469
jstellberg@coilcraft.com

1102 Silver Lake Road
Cary IL 60013

Coilcraft rang a bell - my first job just out of high school in Cary
Illinois! I was hired as an engineering assistant by J. Renskers (who
looked to be about 100 years old to me at the time). My rate of pay was
$1.35/hr - I now make approximately 100 times that much.

Luhan

Luhan,

Jack is still around; he's 120 now. 8^)

He usually stops in during the Christmas holidays and I'll be sure to
pass along your message.

Regards,

John Stellberg
Coilcraft

In article <1134251121.915576.223400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
<jstellberg@coilcraft.com> wrote:

[...]

I pulled the plug on our use of Remote Approach because of the security
concerns it raised with our customers and the realization that, even if
I did find that data had been routed to a competitor, the horse was
already out of the barn at that point.

It may also be the wrong attack on the problem anyway. If they copy you,
they won't develop their own R&D which could be a real threat to you. I
don't think they match you on quality control. In my market, one bogus
part could easily cost me more than I could ever hope to save.

1 OCXO = $350
1 CPLD = $100
2 CPU = $100
.... etc ...
5 Coils = ------- I really don't care

I suspect that others in this group would agree that even in lower cost
markets, zero defects is worth extra.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith wrote:

snip

I suspect that others in this group would agree that even in lower cost
markets, zero defects is worth extra.

In my experience, yes. The cost of good quality is significantly lower
than tech support, warranty returns/refunds and product recall.