Of course a major company downplays the significance of a smaller competitor buying a technology that they passed on. This isn't news, this is expected. News would be Intel expressing regrets that they didn't buy the technology when it was offered.
Well, you know in this business, the best defense, besides offense, is not to be defensive. That is why it is common for "no comments" to be a response. In this case, Intel could have spun it jokingly around to say "glad AMD has come around". Instead, it gave the message that even though you were once a supporter of Intel technology, Intel can turn its back on you, rather than help you develop.
KB +1 on that.
Sour grapes and likely a strong bit of not-invented-here (NIH) mentality from Intel's team. They have their own Xenon horse in the server race now - buying Seamicro might have been an acquisition disaster, ie, not enough room in the sandbox for two server chip design teams.
AKB3001- Possibly. I would have been a lot more surprised if she had said something like, "Yes, SeaMicron has great technology and we are kicking ourselves for not thinking of acquiring that company."
Still, I thought this was a particularly strong worded comment about a competitor's acquisition.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.