​

 

Are the Promises of Quantum Computing Misleading? 

​​​​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​

​

​

​

The other day, just before my flight, I picked up a special issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR) titled "The Year in Tech, 2025."

​

Like many of you, I was excited about the possibility of finding something about quantum computing (QC) and its potential "to transform nearly every industry in today's world."

​

Well… do you know how many articles were about quantum computing?

​

None!

​

And, do you know how many times they mentioned quantum computing?

​

Not even once!

​

For those of us who spend our days thinking about QC, this is disappointing. 

​

It raises a tough question:

​

Is quantum computing truly important, or are we just delusional?

​

Is it just useful for Michio Kaku to make more money selling books, rather than for practical applications? 

​

What Are We Getting Wrong?

​

As I have emphasized in previous posts, I think that one major issue is the lack of honest interaction with end users. 

​

Not to try to sell them something, but to really listen to them!

​

For example, in finance, most quants don’t care about QC—and it seems not much has been done to change that (see my post True: Most Quants Don't Care about Quantum!).

​

The HBR edition I bought had an article titled "What is Responsible Computing?" that struck me as particularly relevant to this discussion. 

​

Let me quote part of their conclusion:

​

"Firms can use the responsible computing framework to make their IT more green, ethical, trustworthy, and sustainable. 

​

The following pillars can help you become a responsible computing provider: ..."

​

Here are two of those pillars:

​

1. "Assess and track energy sources, energy use related to cooling, and water usage."

​

If quantum computers are expected to consume significantly less energy than classical computers for certain computations, why isn’t this being promoted as a key selling point?

​

With AI’s energy consumption continuing to rise, shouldn’t we be presenting QC as a more sustainable alternative to classical computing? 

​

Even if not yet practical, it could at least serve as a compelling investment narrative.

​

2. "Understand the ethical, legal, and social responsibility of processing and storing data."

​

Since quantum communication has been shown to be more secure than classical communication, why isn’t this part of the selling proposition for quantum technologies?

​

These are two clear areas where QC could outperform classical computing, yet we rarely hear them emphasized in public discussions (particularly the first one).

​

Maybe we should stop talking about quantum speedups over classical computers and start positioning QC from a more practical perspective:

​

 ✘ Computational acceleration.

​

 ✓  Energy efficiency.

​

 ✓ Stronger security.

​

Would shifting the conversation in this direction make QC adoption more appealing to investors and industries?

​

Want to dive deeper? My eBook is a great place to start → https://www.ozatp.com/qaf

​