On the other side, it doesn't take much of a lapse in QA to let a single bad part through, when you are dealing with billions of components like Apple is.
On the other side, it doesn't take much of a lapse in QA to let a single bad part through, when you are dealing with billions of components like Apple is.
If they're saying something inconvenient to their government or employer, that's neutral or even positive for their credibility. If they're saying something convenient but classified or otherwise not-for-release, that's generally neutral; 'authorized leaking' is an established practice. But if they're saying something that won't cause them problems and isn't a secret, then it's strange. It raises the possibility that they're anonymous because the claim isn't true and they don't want to be embarrassed, or even that the story writer encouraged anonymity to hide the weakness of the source.
If Bloomberg is saying "we used 17 sources including intelligence officials and an anonymous source who confirmed the hack", well, easy money says the key anonymous source doesn't measure up to the other 16.
To put my tin foil hat on, will we be seeing increased pressure for physical inspections of FAANG hardware?
Basically one expert described how a hack could be done and the journalist re-wrote it as here's how China tried to hack.
>In September when he asked me like, “Okay, hey, we think it looks like a signal amplifier or a coupler. What’s a coupler? What does it look like?” […] I sent him a link to Mouser, a catalog where you can buy a 0.006 x 0.003 inch coupler. Turns out that’s the exact coupler in all the images in the story.