IBM Spins Off the First Pure-Play Quantum Chip Foundry(futurumgroup.com)
50 pointsby rbanffy4 hours ago5 comments
  • caminante44 minutes ago
    This is a pro-IBM piece.

    I'm surprised it has zero mention of potential advantages of trapped ion despite being superior on stability windows, accuracy, and operating temps.

    I also appreciate the disclosure about AI generated content, but this article gets too repetitive.

  • dvhan hour ago
    Can the chips they plan to make there run Shor?
    • bawolff44 minutes ago
      If they could in any meaningful way, i'm pretty sure the press release would have lead with that.
  • madanparas2 hours ago
    The real story isn't the $2B. It's that the foundry is standalone, so other quantum hardware companies can use it. Shared infrastructure beats nine separate research cleanrooms.
    • Zigurd2 hours ago
      Is there enough agreement regarding what is a quantum chip, and what process technology is necessary to make one?
      • ghaff42 minutes ago
        I've been out of the space for a bit. IBM has been betting on the engineered superconducting approach, which makes sense given their background, but there are other options, often for potentially different problem areas. Need to dive back in.
      • imglorpan hour ago
        Is there any agreement regarding real applications that warrant fab volume or is this still speculation?
        • bawolffan hour ago
          There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. Unfortunately these projects are basically useless when it comes to them.
          • NooneAtAll310 minutes ago
            > There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are.

            and what are those applications?

          • icegreentea2an hour ago
            Can you clarify? Do you mean that superconducting qubits are unable to perform the "real applications" theoretically, or that superconducting qubits at the scale this foundry could produce will be unable, or that superconducting qubits that will foundry could produce will still be outperformed by classical techniques?
            • bawolffan hour ago
              I mean, we are no where near the scale [qubit count] & quality where the applications apply. Not just this foundry but in general. I suppose the point is to eventually get there, but we are not close yet.

              You should still view anything Quantum as early R&D.

              • ghaff29 minutes ago
                I don't have the same level of cynicism with quantum that I had with enterprise blockchain. (Hey, I spent a number of years getting sucked into things that didn't pan out along with some that did in a big way.) I pretty much agree with respect to quantum. Practical value is probably further away than a number of folks were betting on at one point though I still believe it's there.
  • stogot2 hours ago
    The article talks about IBM spreading bets to other techniques. Reminds me to ponder again. Has Microsoft retracted their sketchy quantum claims about inventing new states of matter in the past year? https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2025/03/12/microsofts-qu...
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined