Sort of. They doubled down with a second related article after the responses from Apple and Amazon, in which they briefly mention the rebuttals: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evide...

To be super cynical: They got their ad revenue from the story, why would they care?

The reputation hit from being wrong is much bigger than the ad revenue from this one story. Bloomberg has been a very reputable and trusted source and wouldn't willingly throw that away

The story was given legs because Bloomberg has generally been a credible organization. They are tainted if they don't firmly explain their side, and forever anything they report will be coupled with "they were the ones behind that debunked SuperMicro thing".

Clickbait and manufactured stories is a dead end tactic, so they certainly do care, and they certainly have some reasoning. Perhaps they were intentionally mislead.

It would be worth mentioning that the particular journalists behind this story (nevermind Bloomberg as a whole) have been caught pushing nonsense before[1].

On top of that, the story itself has a number of technical implausibilities that render it difficult to believe.[2]

[1]: https://twitter.com/RobertMLee/status/1049617855396933632

[2]: https://www.servethehome.com/investigating-implausible-bloom...

It’s doubtful that the ad revenues on even a highly-clicked story outweighed the cost of paying the reporters for the year they worked on this story, nevermind the costs of the editors and lawyers who pitched in over that year, or the reporting expenses (e.g. travel). Also, it’s well-known that Bloomberg’s news division is heavily subsidized by Bloomberg’s terminal customers.