What is the connection?
> Without proof (like a board) or the names of actual witnesses or hard documents or something, its basically unverifiable, like claiming Area 51 has aliens.
A Bloomberg article based on a year of reporting, 100 interviews, etc. is as likely as aliens? Hmmm ... I feel I can distinguish it pretty easily.
To me these are currently only allegations from one source. When a board is given out to security researchers to publish an independent analysis I'll believe it. The perfect way to be credible to me would be to give a talk at some security conference. There's no investigation of the supply chain, which would have been quite interesting.
But the more I think about it, the more I think that all of this, if true, would be much too serious to even publish, really.
Otherwise, if Bloomberg have been misled by a concocted story, who has the ability to generate enough false sources/etc to engineer it? Seems like the scale puts it beyond a solid PR effort from a competitor?
If we want to disregard what Apple’s denial, we can also disregard Bloomberg’s claim until someone sues someone else and an investigation brings out actual facts.
Aggressive denials yes, but not at the level of specificity that Apple and Amazon have gone to.