The only interesting thing about this is left out. Who planted it is clear (someone told to do so) but not a single time is it questioned who they planted it for. Smells like false flag to me.
We think China does X Y and Z but we know the US does X Y Z and the rest of the alphabet. So unless something specific is leaked that shows who actually ordered this, logic would point at the US.
The article specifically mentions the PLA as the bad guy. So that part was not left out. The whole story is hearsay so far. It's plausible, but best read with a good dose of salt.
If we believe the story up to the point where subcontractors are forced into planting the chips, we must accept that it's easiest and least risk for Chinese government actors to force them into it. Mounting a false-flag attack at Chinese subcontractors would be exceedingly difficult for foreign agents. They'd likely blow their cover when trying to represent Chinese officials.
If you want an alternate version, I suggest you start with the easiest: The whole thing didn't happen. And Bloomberg is a victim of propaganda.
> ...but not a single time is it questioned who they planted it for...
The article and some accompanying reporting on Bloomberg audio/video segments says the attack seems targeted relatively specifically towards nearly 30 organizations (only US-based organizations were mentioned as targets, unknown if the list included organizations based in other nations). One known vector was through four subcontractors in China that built the boards for Supermicro's main Shanghai factory, specifically by bribing and/or coercing managers of those subcontractors' factories to go along with accepting the chip shipments and to make changes to the plant floor from the design to perform the chip insertions.
Designing and building a chip like this and then mounting the logistical effort to performing the insertions costing some non-trivial funds, coupled with the known targets, (Amazon didn't seem specifically targeted, Elemental a company they acquired was, who notably has US national security clients), form the circumstantial allegation that a PLA spy unit was behind the attack. You are correct that this doesn't entirely rule out a false flag possibility, but until we get more details about this, we're operating in the dark.
A false flag is an interesting supposition, but how would the US benefit from successfully convincing the world of the false flag's cover story?
The US has a few things to gain from this story: Economically, because Chinese products are perceived as compromised. Politically: because the Chinese government is seen in the offense.
The US has something to loose too: Being perceived as dependent on Chinese manufacturing and potentially compromised down to military hardware. (The first everybody knows, the second would be devastating for trust.)
All in all it would be a weird angle for a false-flag attack.
But then, since the logic points to the US it only stands to reason that is a false false flag! Why those wiley spies in Beijing really are clever. Discredit The USA and plant spy chips in important computers!
We think China does X Y and Z but we know the US does X Y Z and the rest of the alphabet. So unless something specific is leaked that shows who actually ordered this, logic would point at the US.