Why are pointing to the Sycamore Quantum Computer Datasheet as recommended reading?
It’s because we don’t think that quantum companies are as transparent about their actual technical status as they should be. Google has been very good about providing documentation on their quantum technology and we applaud these efforts. IBM is also quite good at providing technical information about their quantum computing systems as seen on the Quantum Services page of their website.
Several years ago, when I was working in the semiconductor industry, we had an engineering group that kept on promising great things but could never deliver. They would keep on taping out new revisions of the chips and the devices would always come back with bugs in them. So we couldn’t sample the chips to our customers. After a while, our field sales team became frustrated and started to call the team at the factory NATO (No Action, Talk Only). We don’t want to see that happen in quantum.
It is becoming increasingly important for quantum companies to not just talk about they are planning to do, but to actually deliver results and be transparent about their technical status. We think that general statements that we sometimes see, like a company is developing revolutionary technology that will benefit humanity, no longer have a big impact on an increasingly skeptical audience of potential investors, customers, and employees who have heard things like this many times before. So our advice to companies in the quantum community is to skip the homilies and focus your messaging on what differentiates your technology from the hundreds of other companies working on quantum technology and then provide hard data similar to what we see from Google, IBM and some others that shows you are executing on your goals.
May 22, 2021