Analogy: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/lcsc/2302211830_analogysemi-ADX11...
TI: https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ads1115.pdf
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).
See also: https://community.element14.com/members-area/f/forum/53365/n...
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)
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.
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.
