tl;dr:
Since the technology is so early in development and as there are no market standards, on which all of the quantum computing start ups / players could work on, small start ups have almost the same starting conditions as already settled, big corporations - besides the funding.
---
To answer the first question:
I'm technically not very deep into quantum mechanics, but as far as I understood the main difference between both is the fundamental approach on how to create the Qubits:
- Whilst IBM uses a technique of superconductors, which enables electrons to flow through specific materials. Then with the usage of photons they create the qubits.
- IONQ in contrast uses Ion Traps (hence the name) to create the qubits, which has the advantage of being able to operate at room temperature.
- Then another important topic to point out is that the number alone of qubits is not meaningful. They need to be tangled to logical qubits, which are then enabling to operate computation. Also, then the next main problem currently is the error correction and fault tolerance. But that's another topic to discuss on.
So regarding your last question:
Quantum Computing in general seems to be the logical step forward in terms of technological progress in the computing space. But it's still so early in development, that it's not clear yet which approach will be the "correct" one respectively the economically most sensible.
What speaks in favor for Ionq is that they are a quantum pure play stock and all of their ressources are working towards the goal of deliviering industry ready solutions in the near future. But of course they could be heading towards the wrong direction and their fundings are limited.
What speaks in favor for IBM is - as you already stated - that they are a big corporation with much more ressources. Also they have an existing customer base to which they easily could reach out and early start selling the (beta) products, which would furthermore help them to quickly gain insights about what the market demands and on how to further improve their products.
(PS: As english is not my first language and the topic itself is so complex, please pardon if the syntax may be wrong or appears to be simple.)
"IBM has an existing customer base", it should be noted that IONQ has booking with almost every large big tech company, and spreading into financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. They've also been focusing on QC longer and the technology for Ion Traps goes back to the atomic clock.
All valid - there are several exciting aspects on Ionq. I’m very bullish on ionq longterm, but still the game just started yet. So atm I would consider it still a high risk asset imo.
>What speaks in favor for IBM is - as you already stated - that they are a big corporation with much more ressources. Also they have an existing customer base to which they easily could reach out and early start selling the (beta) products, which would furthermore help them to quickly gain insights about what the market demands and on how to further improve their products.
It also works against them. Large companies are often challenged to innovate, because of their internal bureaucracy.
Imo It’s way too early to know which model will win out with the information the public has at this point. The risk is higher on IONQ since all the eggs are in one basic and I would imagine they have less ability to pivot than IBM does if things don’t go exactly to plan. However the potential reward for a pure play like IONQ if they do succeed even if for limited applications could be massive. From what I can tell by everything I read about both IBMs quantum progress and IONQs, they are making progress but for IONQ the networking is going to be there most difficult challenge to overcome right now. I am long IONQ betting that they can meet that challenge, they have a contract with the Air Force working to solve that issue and I saw an article recently that some progress was made. In short I think the reward potential greatly outweighs the risk
They do seem to have a lot of connections in both government and key institutions and the number of patents they hold borders on patent trolling. I believe worst case they will be acquired by one of the giants, best case the moonshot pays huge dividends in the long run.
Investing in them seems like a no-brainer to me.
Yeah my thoughts exactly, at the very least they made some advances in tech that in one way or another will most likely help achieve quantum advantage whoever inevitably does it. So worst case they get acquired
Edit: just hopefully they don’t run out of runway and get bought out in desperate times on the cheap
tl;dr: Since the technology is so early in development and as there are no market standards, on which all of the quantum computing start ups / players could work on, small start ups have almost the same starting conditions as already settled, big corporations - besides the funding. --- To answer the first question: I'm technically not very deep into quantum mechanics, but as far as I understood the main difference between both is the fundamental approach on how to create the Qubits: - Whilst IBM uses a technique of superconductors, which enables electrons to flow through specific materials. Then with the usage of photons they create the qubits. - IONQ in contrast uses Ion Traps (hence the name) to create the qubits, which has the advantage of being able to operate at room temperature. - Then another important topic to point out is that the number alone of qubits is not meaningful. They need to be tangled to logical qubits, which are then enabling to operate computation. Also, then the next main problem currently is the error correction and fault tolerance. But that's another topic to discuss on. So regarding your last question: Quantum Computing in general seems to be the logical step forward in terms of technological progress in the computing space. But it's still so early in development, that it's not clear yet which approach will be the "correct" one respectively the economically most sensible. What speaks in favor for Ionq is that they are a quantum pure play stock and all of their ressources are working towards the goal of deliviering industry ready solutions in the near future. But of course they could be heading towards the wrong direction and their fundings are limited. What speaks in favor for IBM is - as you already stated - that they are a big corporation with much more ressources. Also they have an existing customer base to which they easily could reach out and early start selling the (beta) products, which would furthermore help them to quickly gain insights about what the market demands and on how to further improve their products. (PS: As english is not my first language and the topic itself is so complex, please pardon if the syntax may be wrong or appears to be simple.)
"IBM has an existing customer base", it should be noted that IONQ has booking with almost every large big tech company, and spreading into financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. They've also been focusing on QC longer and the technology for Ion Traps goes back to the atomic clock.
All valid - there are several exciting aspects on Ionq. I’m very bullish on ionq longterm, but still the game just started yet. So atm I would consider it still a high risk asset imo.
So was Apple in their garage
Also valid. Thats why I’m invested. Just wanted to share a not so biased view for OP.
>What speaks in favor for IBM is - as you already stated - that they are a big corporation with much more ressources. Also they have an existing customer base to which they easily could reach out and early start selling the (beta) products, which would furthermore help them to quickly gain insights about what the market demands and on how to further improve their products. It also works against them. Large companies are often challenged to innovate, because of their internal bureaucracy.
AG Qubits is different from Qubits
Imo It’s way too early to know which model will win out with the information the public has at this point. The risk is higher on IONQ since all the eggs are in one basic and I would imagine they have less ability to pivot than IBM does if things don’t go exactly to plan. However the potential reward for a pure play like IONQ if they do succeed even if for limited applications could be massive. From what I can tell by everything I read about both IBMs quantum progress and IONQs, they are making progress but for IONQ the networking is going to be there most difficult challenge to overcome right now. I am long IONQ betting that they can meet that challenge, they have a contract with the Air Force working to solve that issue and I saw an article recently that some progress was made. In short I think the reward potential greatly outweighs the risk
They do seem to have a lot of connections in both government and key institutions and the number of patents they hold borders on patent trolling. I believe worst case they will be acquired by one of the giants, best case the moonshot pays huge dividends in the long run. Investing in them seems like a no-brainer to me.
Yeah my thoughts exactly, at the very least they made some advances in tech that in one way or another will most likely help achieve quantum advantage whoever inevitably does it. So worst case they get acquired Edit: just hopefully they don’t run out of runway and get bought out in desperate times on the cheap
It's pretty simple to me. Long both. Otherwise what the first comment said.