
Quantum gold rush: private funding pouring into quantum startups - imartin2k
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02935-4
======
parsimo2010
There seems to be some disenchantment about quantum computing in the comments
already, but I'll add my take:

This sounds similar to the AI craze that took off in the 80s (or was it the
70s?) where we were making such great progress that general AI was just around
the corner. Tons of people got on the hype train and then we just never
delivered. Investment dollars fell off, and we got the "AI winter." But then a
few advances were made such as deep learning, and another craze has taken off
with AI (now called machine learning) with slightly different expectations.

It sounds like quantum computing promises a lot, and we have mathematical
proofs that show that a proper quantum computer could do great things. Right
now we are making tons of progress, and money is flowing in. But eventually I
think that progress will slow down considerably before we reach the level of
every corporation having a general quantum computer in their server room, and
investment dollars will fall off. Then a decade or two later another
breakthrough will happen and the hype train will start rolling again.

Edit: I guess what I wanted to get at is that you probably shouldn't call
people stupid for investing in promising technologies. The bubble will
_probably_ burst, but a venture capitalist probably shouldn't hold back their
investment money because they think the "real" breakthrough will happen next
decade. If real breakthrough is happening now, but the VC waits, they may have
missed out on one of the most profitable opportunities of their lifetime.

~~~
jerf
Quantum computing may someday be amazing, but at the current rate of progress,
in 5 years it'll still probably be a side show. There's a small-but-reasonable
chance of some sort of massive breakthrough that will make them suddenly jump
in power, but I wouldn't call it a good bet from a financial perspective.
(Bear in mind, for instance, that while Google may have demonstrated a
53-qubit machine, it's still deeply limited and they had to _construct_ a
problem for it to demonstrate quantum supremacy on. It isn't even an arbitrary
53-qubit machine yet.)

At the moment, I see no clear path towards monetization for these startups
yet, in any time scale that makes sense for a startup. AIUI it's not like
there's even a ton of algorithms that you'd want to run on a quantum computer
yet that are known to be clear quantum wins. For instance, breaking encryption
requires a qubit per bit of encryption, IIRC; it's not just that "quantum
computers break encryption" but "4096-arbitrary-qubit computers break 4096-bit
encryption". 4096-qubit machines seem a long shot on the 5-year time frame,
even interpreting current progress as exponential, let alone a 4096-qubit
machine that can actually run Shor's algorithm.

------
lmeyerov
The interesting and missing thing from a lot of discussions is what the
investment bet is (beyond flipping before the musical chairs ends.)

AFAICT, _assuming things keep progressing_ :

\-- General purpose quantum computing is easily 8-10 years out:
[https://twitter.com/lmeyerov/status/1177632571636584448](https://twitter.com/lmeyerov/status/1177632571636584448)
. HW vendors might become lucrative around then, and soon after, SW. As a
language & framework tool designer, I'll probably poke my head out again in a
few years again.

\-- Niche stuff, especially military, can be done over the next few years,
with subsequent ROI in the 5-10 year range. Need funny secure radar tech with
lossy analog circuits? Go for it!

\-- Medium term: There may be some wins around say HFT doing probabilistic
optimization algorithms on super lossy/unreliable quantum circuits, and maybe
national label + pharma stuff for the same. This might be interesting for a
larger-than-expected audience (breakthrough events for synthetic bio,
genomics?), and as a tool designer, blaze the path to general SW, which is
also interesting..

~~~
TrueTom
At this point in time there is no indication that quantum computers will ever
solve a useful problem. Even if there is one it's not likely to be profitable.

------
scottlocklin
It's a bloody shame they're squishing in nonsense startups on quantum
computing with useful imaging and cryptography startups. The latter are places
where investment dollars are actually going to pay off.

Also kind of shocking how nature has devolved into a sort of science tabloid
format. I suppose that happened a while back, but I remember when being
published there in any format meant something.

~~~
new299
This is a nature news feature, not a scientific publication. The later still
“means something” if you care about that sort of thing.

~~~
jessriedel
Nature News is published as a column in the physical printed version of the
Nature journal, no? So it's true it's not a Nature journal research article,
but I think that's what scottloclin meant when he wrote "...published there in
any format...".

------
easytiger
Soon to be followed a few years later with the same money pouring in to
PR/consultancy report hype for quantum tech soon to be followed by a a
predictable death for anyone dumb enough to have fallen for it whilst the
startup investors divested long before.

~~~
krastanov
I do not think historically this is what happened to the same type of hype for
transitors/integrated-circuit startups a few decades ago (some of them failed,
some of them reshaped both the technology and economy landscapes).

Certainly, the amount of hype and __uninformed __investing are damaging to the
field, but coherent control of quantum states (whether for computing or not)
is a "very big deal", that would create amazing technologies from sensing and
metrology to (hopefully) computing.

~~~
easytiger
You misunderstand.

The same type of history had been identified as a way to get things sold.

You can buy the pr for any mediocre technology and it's success is irrelevant.

~~~
krastanov
My point is that this particular technology is very much worthwhile, even if
some of the startups are making annoying and misleading claims (DWave for
instance, which indeed sells expensive devices that are not quantum computers
and do not seem to be that useful). As the technology is developed, the
misleading claims will simply fall behind and be forgotten.

~~~
easytiger
The lie is it will fundamentally and universally replace everything we have in
now. That's the sale.

Nope.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
No one has said anything like that. Not even the more "media-savy" startups.
Everyone is talking about how on very specific problems you will get some sort
of time or energy advantage.

------
pluma
"Gold rush" is a nice way to say "bubble".

It's just another field with some interesting (modest) applications but where
99% of startups are likely either knowingly peddling snake-oil or are total
moonshots that have no chance of succeeding.

EDIT: Just to be clear: there are likely some interesting applications and
some companies pursuing them might end up making it big, but the "gold rush"
very much is mostly companies trying to ride on the hype until they crash and
burn predictably.

~~~
Pigo
I see universities trying to bolster interest in quantum computing by putting
out open source projects to simulate programming for one. I suppose their
hoping some kid will create their industry by giving them a cool idea.

I genuinely cant wait to see what will come of it, but I wouldn't be surprised
if they're expecting quantum snapchat or quantum youtube.

------
amiune
HN commenters seems to have the amazing ability to predict the future with
incredible precision. Why we need quantum computers if we have HN commenters?

------
georgewsinger
Street cred: Steve Jurvetson has been investing in quantum startups since the
early 2000s. It is discussed at the very beginning of his Tim Ferris
interview: [https://tim.blog/2018/05/31/steve-
jurvetson/](https://tim.blog/2018/05/31/steve-jurvetson/). Highly recommended.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Did he say whether any paid off?

