EMCC

JeffB1517

I think quantum computing in the 2020s is where digital computing was in the 1940s. In the 1940s, tabulating machines were common, analog computers worked for a single hardcoded complex calculation. Digital computers if you could get them to work could potentially replace a lot of the use cases of these more expensive systems. The potential of running programs in software like the more complex tabulators, being able to handle larger data sets like with diversity like tabulators while being able to perform complex operations like the analog systems was obvious. Skeptics existed for example, even if you could build these things would the slowdown be 1/1000th or far worse like 1/1,0000,000,000th of the speed of analog computers? The speedups from switching to vacuum tubes to transistors weren't even anticipated. The analogy sounds very favorable. But you are asking about investing. It is worth noting which companies were leading the research * Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation (EMCC): * Remington Rand * Bell Laboratories * International Business Machines (IBM) * Joint project government subsidized between Reeves Instrument Corporation and RCA. Bell would go on to lose money in the computer space for decades. They would win Noble prizes, invent C, Unix, digital photography, play a big role in the invention of the transistor, among a hundred often innovations and still from a business perspective failure after failure for decades. EMCC went broke quickly and got bought by Remington Rand. IBM would go on to make a fortune become the leader in this space. You'll note, though IBM's market cap vs. Microsoft, Google, Facebook... they did misstep several times despite being the clear winner. Remingon Rand became Unisys did well for a bit but never transitioned out of mainframes and got destroyed mini computers, IBM in the mainframe space and then personal computing. So even in a situation where everything works out, investing in early innovation is hard.