Completely agree with you re: Bloomberg's somewhat shady history of reporting. However, in this case, the article is citing a research note written by TD Cowen equity research analysts.

For example, here's another article from MarketWatch citing this same research note -- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-research-note-thats-ra...

Leads me to lend more credence to the news even though OP is linking Bloomberg.

This is indeed worth noting.

Bloomberg seems to be a player in the market, or at least it is affected by players in the market.

It always publishes news in good rhythm with the market.

this article is just a reference, still need to wait for Microsoft's announcement

Unless you learn of a Bloomberg article before it goes out, you shouldn't.

when there's a scam, don't be scammed

I’ve worked in equity research, and an accusation of FUD is an accusation of intentionally malign behavior.

Getting reporting wrong is not the same as FUD.

"Years later, Bloomberg doubles down on disputed Supermicro supply chain hack story" - https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/years-later-bloom...

Sorry I forgot.

Yes, this is absolutely FUD.

This is the insistence to spread FUD for … some uncertain aim.

Perhaps it hitting all these various firms, in order to leverage their strong reputation, to cause the price to drop, allowing someone - perhaps Bloomberg himself, to make a profit off of it.

No no, I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist now. But my eyes were opened by the sharing of the story.

The fact that FT, WSJ, Fox or a million other sites haven’t latched onto this obvious scheme, is heinous, and once again a sign of our completely captured media.

When you double down on the incorrect reporting instead of retracting or correcting it, as Bloomberg did with their ludicrous spy chip story, it becomes FUD regardless of your initial intent.

To what purpose? Enron spread FUD to further its goals.

We can INVENT goals here, to FIT the conclusion we have already reached - that Bloomberg is spreading FUD.

But this is because we have already concluded, and are now finding things to fit our conclusion.