Seems like tacit acknowledgment that IBM mothership is not the right place for a speculative growth play from both a management and capital perspective.

I’m not IBMologist but I do remember how IBM pushed Watson when it was clear that upper management had no idea what Watson actually was. Regardless of the viability of the underlying technology, it’s best to keep such things away from the consultants.

Also, article is very difficult to read. Bad typeface, spacing, coherence and prose. I found the press release less strained.

https://newsroom.ibm.com/ibm-and-u-s-department-of-commerce-...

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.

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.

A bailout for a company that stopped innovating and instead has been inventing new ways to create middle management and bureaucracy.

So much for capitalism.

Can the chips they plan to make there run Shor?

Two questions:

-do the chips help with inference?

-can you run Doom on the chips?

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...

[dead]