Quantum computers: Nothing is impossible

You are the CEOs of two of Europe’s most promising quantum computer manufacturers. But let’s be honest: you don’t actually sell working computers yet, do you?

Jan Leisse: That depends on how you define “working”. Quantum computers are still in their infancy. What we at EleQtron are currently selling on the hardware side are demonstrators. But it’s never just about the hardware. You always have to look at the full picture, including the quantum algorithm, use case and dataset. Think of it like baking. You need flour, sugar and a liquid – and everything has to be in perfect balance.

IQM is already one or two steps ahead. However, your quantum computers – like all quantum computers on the market – are not yet ready for practical, everyday use.

Jan Goetz: We need to bear in mind that the development of quantum computers will never actually be “finished”. Similar to the semiconductor industry, which has been constantly evolving since the 1950s, quantum computing is a technology that will keep evolving, decade after decade. We are still at very the beginning. When it comes to readiness for practical use, the real question is the “commercial benefit” – and we’re not there yet. However, this does not mean that these computers are useless. In the field of scientific computing, they are already providing answers to fundamental questions.

You both rely on two completely different technologies in your companies. How do they compare?

Leisse: EleQtron builds quantum computers based on ion traps. It sounds a bit like science fiction, but it has been working since the 1980s. We trap individual atoms in an electromagnetic field and then use their quantum mechanical properties for computing. These “qubits” are used for quantum calculations with the help of microwaves. The big advantage here is that our ion traps do not require large cooling systems and deliver inherently perfect, stable qubits. That means lower long-term operating costs and easier scaling.

Don’t you see yourselves as competitors?

Goetz: Of course there’s competition – every tender for a computer can only have one winner. But right now, we’re still baking the cake. We have to work together to get it to rise, before proceeding to share out the slices.

Leisse: I also see the competition less on the technological side, but rather in areas such as recruiting in a competitive labor market. Or in terms of fundraising – because the field of tech investors in Europe is also relatively limited, as we all know. And yet I also believe that working together as colleagues rather than against each other is the right way forward.

Goetz: For example, we need to agree on certain standards and modalities. And we should also share some of the lessons we learn from our work with quantum computers in order to develop further together. It simply makes sense to pull together, and to involve the end users.

The new European quantum strategy aims to make Europe a global pioneer in quantum technology by 2030. Is this realistic, or just wishful thinking?

Goetz: It’s just a target for now, and I basically think it’s a good idea to set ourselves ambitious goals. In most cases, however, setbacks emerge not through a lack of ambition, but through a lack of action. All too often, the millions that are announced turn out to be old programs that have been re-labeled. It is therefore important that goals are backed up with real resources.

Leisse: We shouldn’t wait for the right levers to be pulled at European level and assume that our problems will then be solved. That won’t work. However, I believe that Europe has many of the puzzle pieces necessary to really be one of the leading players: top-level research at universities, specialized suppliers, electrical engineering companies, etc. What is missing is connecting it all to form a truly end-to-end value chain.

Goetz: Quantum computing usually comes from an academic context – it’s no coincidence that both EleQtron and IQM are university spin-offs. This presents an opportunity, but also a risk. In the USA, we now have very large quantum companies that are starting to make a grab for these smaller European companies. If we don’t take measures in Europe to prevent this, we will have a problem. But we have both the political will and the necessary instruments. France, for example, has started investing heavily, with the Ministry of Defense funding start-ups for years to come.

Mr. Leisse, you wrote about this topic on LinkedIn: “Germany, time to wake up!” and criticized the fact that, unlike the French, we do not yet have a national quantum strategy. But what would that actually achieve?

Leisse: It shouldn’t stop there, of course, but it would be a start; first you set a goal and then think about how to get there. Germany has already taken the right steps in recent years and provided considerable funding. That was a strong signal and made many things easier for us start-ups. But now it’s about making it more sustainable, not just from one legislative period to the next, but also beyond the founding phase of a start-up. Ultimately, we need companies and products that can hold their own on the global market.

Goetz: I agree, but national strategies like these shouldn’t focus too much just on our own country. We need to enter into alliances and work together to build a supply and value chain. Bearing this in mind, I think the many national initiatives are commendable. In the end, however, we need to create an overall picture to ensure that everyone is really moving in the same direction.

Do you really see these partnerships as global or primarily European?

Goetz: Technological sovereignty means freedom of choice. We should work together with “like-minded countries” that share our values, regardless of the continent.

The first sentence of the German government’s new “High-Tech Agenda” states that Germany is well positioned internationally in terms of quantum technology. Do you share this view? Or has the USA reached an entirely different level here?

Leisse: It may be that you get this impression because the Americans are simply louder. We Europeans tend to be more reserved. Reading Microsoft’s publications, for example, you’d think they’re miles ahead of us. I am convinced that this is not the case, though. It is true that we have an ultra-strong scientific foundation, be it in theoretical physics or practical electrical engineering. But we can’t rest on our laurels, of course, because there are completely different skills and topics involved. In addition to the hardware, we also need suitable use cases. And unfortunately, we are having a bit of a hard time here in Germany when it comes to driving this design forward at great speed, getting the necessary funding and adopting the right mindset.

Goetz: I actually think we are in a very good starting position. We simply lack the gravitational pull of hyperscalers like Microsoft or Google, who are investing insane sums of money here. At the same time, however, we don’t have the massive, centralized coordination and funding that we see in China. That means we need to find our own European way in this area – and really stick to it.