kompootor t1_j9oskl1 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 2:42 PM

Reply to comment by kompootor in Google announces major breakthrough that represents ‘significant shift’ in quantum computers by Ezekiel_W

And this is not an isolated problem. I saw a talk by IBM recently that also said they had something in QC that was commercially viable, but after a few questions it was clear they had nothing even close to a realistic (if any) idea for what their business model would look like -- it was like it hadn't even occurred to them to consider that kind of thing before claiming something was commercially viable.

symmetricalboy t1_j9phi5m wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:23 PM

I'm aroused by your passion.

kompootor t1_j9puchn wrote on February 23, 2023 at 6:42 PM

QC can't be developed past a fizzled-out tinker-toy if there's nobody willing to pay for it (there's a finite amount of VC out there, and they all want to believe there'll be returns before they die). There's nobody to pay for it if there's no viable commercial market. There's no viable commercial market if they can't even conceive of a business model.

(The government would fund QC for cryptography, sure, but meeting those requirements is many orders easier and cheaper than getting a generalized QC of the kind everyone's excited about.)