Has anyone considered that the US government may have asked Apple to conceal the events?
Why in the world would they want to do that? Proof that China had a dangerously compromised supply chain would be political dynamite. Companies would be incentivized or required to relocate to the US for national security reasons.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
You’re really struggling now. Nope, Gruber wasn’t late because he doesn’t break news, he’s a commentator. The reason I linked to DF’s version is for his selective use of the transcript and his succinct conclusion.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Not only boxing him into a corner, it also showing he’s not really that smart. Clearly not as smart as he think he is if he bet on this Bloomberg story. Personally I’d say he’s quite dumb since everyone here can see his agenda from 5 miles away.
Perhaps there's a few people here not quite as smart as they think they are...
You haven't at all followed what I've been saying since Saturday have you, instead relying on others here to tell you what I think instead of bothering with what I myself said? You might want to have a peek before assuming I'm all in with Bloomberg.
I've been pretty convinced about Apple/Amazon speaking the truth since back on the 5th with only a little wavering when the story appeared here about Apple execs looking into it but only willing to comment off the record. (I think that was on the 6th and had to do with a Buzzfeed report)
Otherwise I'm just not ready to say that all other parts of the storyline Bloomberg put out are complete fiction even if some others here have already decided it was all a lie. But I have little doubt about Apple/Amazon being truthful about what they know about it.
Like others, I am thinking that Bloomberg better soon show more substance to its original report of doctored motherboards being used in Apple, etc., data center servers or the loss of credibility will be significant and long-term. It's starting to look like they started with the idea that this could be done, in theory, and got to the conclusion that this actually happened using unnamed sources that are now proving to be unreliable based on the definitive statements of Apple and other companies that were named. The latest story is simply a distraction from the original, not support for it. Magicians use this trick all the time.
I can only shake my head and sigh, heavy sigh, at the passionate denials of this story based on "because I don't want to hear this stuff". So, people make up reasons to discredit it. (The silliest is: "Well its based on anonymous sources -- that makes it fake news!")
Mainstream news media (the real stuff, not the propaganda sites) have used anonymous sources since the inception of media. Yes, they make mistakes, but they also correct them when found. But, they also check their stories carefully to be not only factually accurate but truthful -- and 99% of the time they are.
This article leaves a lot of wiggle room in terms of who reported what and exactly what happened and to whom. But that doesn't make it false -- no matter how much one doesn't like what they say.
For myself, I prefer reality to bias and personal preferences.
And, in this case, I suspect there is a lot more here and it is more complex than people want to believe.
I can only shake my head and sigh, heavy sigh, at the passionate denials of this story based on "because I don't want to hear this stuff". So, people make up reasons to discredit it. (The silliest is: "Well its based on anonymous sources -- that makes it fake news!")
Mainstream news media (the real stuff, not the propaganda sites) have used anonymous sources since the inception of media. Yes, they make mistakes, but they also correct them when found. But, they also check their stories carefully to be not only factually accurate but truthful -- and 99% of the time they are.
This article leaves a lot of wiggle room in terms of who reported what and exactly what happened and to whom. But that doesn't make it false -- no matter how much one doesn't like what they say.
For myself, I prefer reality to bias and personal preferences.
And, in this case, I suspect there is a lot more here and it is more complex than people want to believe.
Bloomberg makes a conclusion with no direct evidence. Its article is wrong with incorrect logic. This is not truth. They are not telling the truth.
I can only shake my head and sigh, heavy sigh, at the passionate denials of this story based on "because I don't want to hear this stuff". So, people make up reasons to discredit it. (The silliest is: "Well its based on anonymous sources -- that makes it fake news!")
Mainstream news media (the real stuff, not the propaganda sites) have used anonymous sources since the inception of media. Yes, they make mistakes, but they also correct them when found. But, they also check their stories carefully to be not only factually accurate but truthful -- and 99% of the time they are.
This article leaves a lot of wiggle room in terms of who reported what and exactly what happened and to whom. But that doesn't make it false -- no matter how much one doesn't like what they say.
For myself, I prefer reality to bias and personal preferences.
And, in this case, I suspect there is a lot more here and it is more complex than people want to believe.
Bloomberg makes a conclusion with no direct evidence. Its article is wrong with incorrect logic. This is not truth. They are not telling the truth.
Because you demand a jury trial with 10 eye witness accounts testifying in person and a smoking gun laying on the witness stand doesn't mean this story is "wrong with incorrect logic".
So to recap, Bloomberg releases a story about spy chips introduced in factories. New super small spy chips that create back doors. Within a few days it experts cast doubts on it on various fronts. So Bloomberg tries to add weight to their story by releasing a completely different story that was recycled out of the NSA snowden leaks of 5 years ago that relates to the whole industry (not just supermicro). Is this fake news? Is it even news?
So to recap, Bloomberg releases a story about spy chips introduced in factories. New super small spy chips that create back doors. Within a few days it experts cast doubts on it on various fronts. So Bloomberg tries to add weight to their story by releasing a completely different story that was recycled out of the NSA snowden leaks of 5 years ago that relates to the whole industry (not just supermicro). Is this fake news? Is it even news?
It isn't fake news.
It is news. Just not new news.
But it's funny that you say "experts cast doubt on it" -- because the whole thing is based on information from experts. So, which set are wrong? Or are all of them a little bit right? Does each have a piece of the truth?
Well, one set of "experts" have claimed things without providing any proof. The experts that I referred to are the IT press. E.g. the register. Take a look😉
Comments
You haven't at all followed what I've been saying since Saturday have you, instead relying on others here to tell you what I think instead of bothering with what I myself said? You might want to have a peek before assuming I'm all in with Bloomberg.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3098040/#Comment_3098040
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3098142/#Comment_3098142
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3098235/#Comment_3098235
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3098569/#Comment_3098569
I've been pretty convinced about Apple/Amazon speaking the truth since back on the 5th with only a little wavering when the story appeared here about Apple execs looking into it but only willing to comment off the record. (I think that was on the 6th and had to do with a Buzzfeed report)
Otherwise I'm just not ready to say that all other parts of the storyline Bloomberg put out are complete fiction even if some others here have already decided it was all a lie. But I have little doubt about Apple/Amazon being truthful about what they know about it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rubio-blumenthal-letter-supermicro-bloomberg-china-microchip-2018-10?r=UK&IR=T
Things may come to a head sooner rather than later.
For myself, I prefer reality to bias and personal preferences.