RF Carolina Vigano
RF Carolina Vigano
Date: 31 January 2025
Date: 31 January 2025

Will tech-bro capitalism kill the quantum computer?

Pump-and-dump narratives are hurting the development of the quantum computer, laments Martijn Heck.
Martijn Heck

During the Christmas break, we could entertain ourselves with a new soap opera: “Tech bros in quantum land.” It started with Google announcing its Willow chip for quantum computing. It was undoubtedly a great breakthrough in quantum error correction, but people’s attention was drawn to a useless calculation it could do, outperforming a classical computer by the age of our universe.

Things accelerated when Elon Musk tweeted to Google’s Sundar Pichai that they should shoot a quantum computer into space. The internet exploded, as did the valuation of Nasdaq-listed quantum computing companies. Nobody seemed interested anymore: why the heck would you want that? The stock market rollercoaster continued with a crash when Nvidia’s Jensen Huang stated that “really useful quantum computing is at least 15 years away.” It went up when D-Wave’s Alan Baratz stated that quantum companies already have real business, then down again when Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg agreed with Huang.

Why all the fuss? Willow is a scientific breakthrough, but breakthroughs don’t accelerate the quantum computing roadmap. They are the roadmap. Huang and Zuckerberg are just reiterating what most experts agree on. And yes, D-Wave, IBM and the like already have real business in quantum computing, as the world needs to do research for a quantum future, also known as quantum readiness. However, that’s not yet the market that merits sky-high stock market valuations.

Most publicly traded quantum companies entered the stock market through a SPAC, which is comparable to crashing a wedding as a plus-one. It’s a nice plaything for investors and people with money, but the stock price isn’t a mark of quality for the technology. These stocks fluctuate more on rumor and bold-faced marketing than on progress in scientific understanding and engineering.

Exaggeration is, of course, a game all too familiar to the tech bros. Dominating the narrative, boosting the investments and pushing competition out of the market. This works because most tech firms are basically marketing outfits.

Quantum computing – and other deep tech – is a different game. Actual hardware needs to be developed. Hardware that doesn’t exist yet. Hardware that requires long-term research investments. And above all, hardware that has a competitor in classical computers. Either you outperform a supercomputer or you don’t. There’s no low-hanging fruit. We’re in for a long game, with uncertain payoffs.

This long game requires a different rhetoric. A market rollercoaster is bad because it hurts long-term strategies and cuts off the talent pipeline, as young people will look for more stable opportunities. If we motivate kids to study deep tech and STEM, we need to be aware that they only become available for the job market in about ten years. Will there be a job for them in 2035? If we build a holistic and synergetic R&D team, with talent from all over the world, will it still have budget five years from now? An unstable market will kill deep-tech initiatives and related innovation. It’s like having Usain Bolt compete in a marathon: sure, he’ll overtake many for short intervals, but he’ll never win the race. He’ll likely not even finish it.

The narrative has to change, and that can only happen by giving it back to the experts. The investors, consultants, lobbyists, influencers, market analysts and tech bros might be doing more harm than good. An MBA might allow you to understand the business model of Meta, but it won’t help you understand a computer. And that’s what quantum computers are: a tool that either solves a problem or not. It’s an engineering challenge.

Unfortunately, in Europe, we love to binge American soaps from cliffhanger to cliffhanger. The problem with soap is that it consists of bubbles. China might not be massively hooked on US soap operas and will have its own shows. Maybe slower? Maybe with better storyline buildup and character development? Today’s show ratings don’t count. The ratings in 2040 do.