Upset at Microchip Technologies (What are they thinking) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2013, 11:14:11 pm
content: I apologize for the rant but it is rather upsetting none the less so here we go...I needed to order a new PIC16F1829 micro controller due to my stupidity I accidentally broke a prong of the original chip I had when taking it out of the socket.So I went to Microchips store and ordered a new PIC16F1829 for $1.80 or something like that and it had to be shipped from their Thailand facility. The chip arrived today but when I opened the package what did I find....The MCU was packaged in a large cardboard box marked Static Sensitive. Inside the box was the MCU packaged in a PINK anti static bag and inside the bag it was in a anti static bar.WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!!!This MCU had to be flown from across the world to get to me and it is in this garbage packaging. So disappointed I am going to have to ream out their customer service department I think.Thankfully the chip has arrived in full working condition but I am still pissed that they would ship something such large distances with such crap packaging.My PICkit 3 kit came properly packaged in a shield bag with the PIC18 stuck in the good anti static foam. Not sure how they can slip so badly on the new MCU.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 12:12:45 am
content: If it's one of those black cardboard boxes, it's conductive. Check with a multimeter.

author: David_AVD
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 12:16:27 am
content: Wow, they should be tarred and feathered for what they did to you.Seriously, it sounds as though it was packed just fine.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 12:18:47 am
content: The box could have been a static shielding one. Is it black on the inside?Dave.

author: cloudscapes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 12:35:17 am
content: Not saying it couldn't have been packaged a bit better, but it's been my experience than PICs and AVRs can really take a beating, electronically.

author: Wartex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 01:31:41 am
content: Wait wait, you paid $1.80 and expect a chip on a pallet?

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 01:58:32 am
content: Sounds fine to meAs far as packaging fails go, this hardly even qualifies as a fail

author: smackaay
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 02:29:07 am
content: Wow, life must be tough! I can imagine the response of the customer service guy as he says 'Sorry about that!' and makes a jerkoff motion, pointing to the phone, to his friend across from him in the office.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 02:41:12 am
content: HaHa Actually by the looks of it the box is just a standard yellowish corrugated box. No conductive material that I can tell by eye I would have to check it with a meter. Even if the MCU can take a decent wack it still does not justify not using the better packaging when sending sensitive components as it is labeled. You think they would take a tiny bit more care none the less.Not expecting a pallet but I would expect at least a typical shielded bag or at least be stuck in conductive foam. The point is if they go through good packaging practices on their demo boards why not on their MCU's.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 02:48:34 am
content: Does it work? Then it was packed fine.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 03:27:04 am
content: I think he was expecting the dark silvery semi transparent backs. Aren't they the ones that really protect, whereas the PINK stuff is just slightly resistive.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 03:50:33 am
content: While something is inside a big cardboard box it is safe. Static or ESD damage only occurs if a significant excess voltage potential occurs between the device and the surroundings, or across the device. Static is not some kind of magic voodoo death ray that will destroy a chip at 1000 yards.If every device pin remains at the same potential the device will not suffer any damage. If the device is inside a static dissipating bag then short of attempted destruction the device will be quite safe. Take it outside the box and outside the bag and all bets are off.The danger is in the handling before it was packed and after it was unpacked. While it traveled it was really in no danger.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 06:30:24 am
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 07, 2013, 11:14:11 pmThat's fine. Those antistatic tubes will protect the IC.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 08:19:39 am
content: Hmm, Microchip gives customers many reasons to be upset with them, but actually I find their shipping practices rather neat. What you have described seems like an identical packaging to that, i which they ship samples and I never had any problem with those.The correct reason to be ranting at Microchip is poor silicon engineering, unclear datasheets and libraries with inherent software bugs in them. About those I could go on for a whole day...

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 01:01:43 pm
content: I think there data sheets are not too bad but I have not seen any other MCU data sheets as this is my first foray into Electronics but I will say that there data sheets are rather un organized making it difficult to find certain pieces of information you need. There architecture on the other hand is rather meh on a lot of devices particularly the PIC16 and Lower causing the need to use unnecessary extra work to get at the appropriate registers. Also lets not forget there horridly over priced C compiler.All this aside I will probably end up moving to AVR chips anyway.Keep in mind everyone I am new to this and I am use to seeing the silver colored bags not the pink ones. I am sure the pink one was fine to prevent friction based static. I would have still expected a silver colored bag due to the potential of me un packaging it and giving it a zap. Luckily I have worked with sensitive devices a lot building my own PC's so I have good practices for preventing shocking chips and boards when handling.

author: bombledmonk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 02:58:37 pm
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 08, 2013, 01:01:43 pmAs far as I can recall XC8, XC16, and XC32 are free these days including commercial purposes. It starts out as a 60 day Pro trial and reverts to the lower levels of compiler optimizations (which are still decent).Silicon companies have to charge for their compilers for three reasons.1. Accounting Trolls - because even in a company who's job it is to make and sell silicon there are still bean counters who don't understand the business.2. Some customers won't consider a compiler legitimate unless it costs lots of money.3. Some want guaranteed support with a direct line which a good chunk of what they are paying for.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 04:39:03 pm
content: At the Pro version XC8 is solid and does a great job. At the free level the code is horrid you swear they just find a translation to assembly that is the most verbose way possible to do it. Sure there are ways around it to an extent with well written C and inline asm but from the free point of view XC8 and next to useless for anything beyond simple. Then again if going beyond simple you might as well just pay the $500 for the compiler but $500 for a compiler is insane still. Even Microsoft does not go to that extent as you get the IDE and the compilers for $700. If they charged say $150 - $300 for the compiler it would be much more attractive. The other issue is you need to pay for XC8 XC16 and XC32 separately they should all be under 1 compiler for $500. Not $500 each.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 04:53:59 pm
content: Still think you received the chip well packed. Strange rant.

author: jerry507
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 04:57:22 pm
content: Work paid 10k for Keil. $500 is folding money.

author: bombledmonk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 05:01:58 pm
content: I guess it's a matter of perspective. $500 in the world of MCU C compilers seems extremely cheap to me. It's a trivial expense for most businesses, but indeed not insignificant for one man shops and hobbyists. They do assist with the expense if you are part of their consultant program.A while back I heard they were thinking about pushing their internal compilers to open source, but I haven't heard anything since. Anyone know if they got around to that?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 05:34:41 pm
content: QuoteIt's a day or two of a professional's time at most, and will save more than that in very little time.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2013, 05:46:58 pm
content: No open source compilers that I have seen yet unless you go AVR as they use GCC as the base. There are the MikroC compilers which is a Authorized Microchip partner and you can get their compiler for $250 bucks but I have no compared the generated code with XC8's yet. I have been using MPASM to learn because my goal is to learn the low level details of the MCU's then I will move to C because I am already a very proficient C programmer. When I get a chance I will compare the two free version outputs.Keep in mind I am not a professional just learning and the free version of XC8 doubles the code size making it tough to fit in the flash memory.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 02:39:04 am
content: A hobbyist can just use a faster/bigger microcontroller.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 02:45:39 am
content: Quote from: bombledmonk on March 08, 2013, 02:58:37 pmMicrochip CEO Steve Sanghi personally confirmed this to me. The reason they have to at least try and break even on tools is because if they didn't, there would be too much pressure (from the board/shareholders) to shut the division down and/or outsource it etc. Be careful what you wish for.Dave.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 02:57:30 am
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 07, 2013, 11:14:11 pmAbsolutely nothing wrong with the packing you described. In fact I can't really tell if you're complaining about insufficient anti-static measures (unfounded), or about them using overly bulky packaging for a tiny object.What they were thinking.... I'd suggest they were thinking that anyone who'd order ONE unit of a $1.80 chip, to be shipped around the world, has some kind of psychological problem. Come on, the postage cost what, $10 to $20?Why didn't you order at least 10 chips?Next time you break a pin off, are you going to go through the same time wasting exercise?The packing wasn't inadequate, it was sarcastic.

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 04:19:25 am
content: I've received free Maxim samples this way. Huge 3 feet long box, bubble wrap, another smaller box inside, more bubble wrap and then three tiny chips in the middle. Came all the way from Asia somewhere. I clearly don't understand this shipping thing (I understand they use bulk pricing and all but if I try to ship that thing it's gonna cost me an arm and a leg). Unless a disgruntled employee did it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 05:11:06 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on March 09, 2013, 02:57:30 amTechnically, if you take ESD seriously, there is something wrong with it. It is not best practice, and would not hold up to a stringent ESD audit. I know companies that have been black-listed as a supplier for doing that.In practice, no, par for the course.Dave.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 09:46:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 09, 2013, 02:45:39 amIt does make you wonder about the quality of people on the board if they can't understand things like this though...

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 09:55:46 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on March 09, 2013, 09:46:26 amMBA people?Alexander.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 10:34:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 09, 2013, 02:45:39 amThis does indeed make sense. Stakeholders in a company can be quite a nuisance when it comes to small things like this. This does however say something about their company structure that many companies try to avoid but they are indeed super successful as a whole profit wise. Despite the stakeholders pushing for the charge I still think there could be a better way to market their compilers and still break even. It is not like they update the compilers every day with new chips because they don't come out with new chips every day. Even if it was as simple as allowing the free version to at least optimize to Level 1 so that the code is not 50% more bloated in larger cases. 50% is quite ridiculous of a limitation. Level 1 would at least bring that down to 25% more bloat then Level 3. Still attractive enough to buy the Pro version at some point but not hindering to the hobbyist. Sure shoot for a bigger chip but bigger chip = more $$ and many hobbyists learning are bound to blow stuff up and to get to the bigger chips you are also looking at the architecture getting more complex which can make learning harder for the hobbyist.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 03:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 09, 2013, 10:34:20 amWith Microchip it seems like it's not far off - I've always been puzzled how it can be worth doing so many variants.QuoteI think Microchip have got this strategy wrong. Code-size limits make a lot more sense IMOProducing unnecessarily bloated code means that someone evaluating them against the competition could easily come to falsely bad conclusions about speed and code size efficiency.Compiler quality is a much bigger issue on PICs than most other common architectures as most of the competition have been designed around high level languages, so even an avarage compiler can work OK - PICs (at least the 8-bit ones) really need a clever compiler to get the best out of them.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 03:55:56 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on March 09, 2013, 03:29:20 pmI agree. Code size and performance are important factors when evaluating compilers or MCU platforms. Making themselves look bad is a stupid strategy in my opinion. Code size limitations is also what most of the other compiler vendors, at least in the ARM world, use.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 04:25:30 pm
content: When they released the pic32 compiler it was code size limmited... After incessant whinging on the forum the next version came out with optimisation limits. Funny thing was if you downloaded the compiler source code (it was a gcc port) you could see the source file with the licensing limits, making it a breeze to hack

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2013, 05:11:01 pm
content: I agree code size is a good choice. Give say level 1 or 2 optimization and maybe 3 - 4 kbytes of a limitation. If you go beyond that odds are you are beyond beginner and well into intermediate. If you push the limit you know have 3 choices port to ASM, mix ASM and c or buy the compiler. This makes buying more convenient because odds are you are working on something cool that helps justify the purchase for a hobbiest that is. Professionals would know right off the bat if they need it and work would buy it.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 01:21:14 am
content: Quote from: poorchava on March 08, 2013, 08:19:39 amMicrochip have some of the best written datasheets out there

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 02:52:36 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on March 09, 2013, 09:46:26 amDefine "quality". You can be a smart high quality board member that only cares about short term profits and your golden handshakeRemember, board members have one duty that overrides all others, a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, most of whom crave short term profits.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 02:55:17 am
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 09, 2013, 10:34:20 amRemember they are not in the business to pander to hobbyists, they derive almost no income from that. Only some perceptual concept of hobbyists turn into loyal commercial customers in the future etc.Dave.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 10:57:49 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 10, 2013, 02:55:17 amI agree here Dave but like you said hobbiests become loyal customers. Ironically I just picked up an arduino ultimate maker kit. I am rather disappointed with how hard it is to find the information to attack avr from the perspective I want. I have to give microchip credit there easy to find what you need. Essentially I just wanted to use the arduino as a proto dev board and then use that to learn the architecture of the avr chip. I want to do this through ASM and finding info beyond some small tutorials is next to impossible on the Atmel site.At least now I have a crapload of components to use with my PIC.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 11:53:17 am
content: Quote from: bombledmonk on March 08, 2013, 02:58:37 pmThere is a free c compiler called "Small Device C Compiler"http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/It supports the PIC16F1829 along with these..It would be nice for someone to try and benchmark all the various compilers for some of the popular make of chips to see how they get on.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 01:56:25 pm
content: Quote from: blewisjr on March 10, 2013, 10:57:49 amWhat kind of information are you looking for? If you go to the product page of the device and hit the "Documents" tab there's a ton of documentation including the assembly language reference and development techniques app notes.

author: blewisjr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 02:13:56 pm
content: I am basically looking for an instruction reference. The rest can be figured out from the data sheet.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 10, 2013, 02:24:03 pm
content: AVR Instruction Set Manual