Quantum computers have not conclusively performed a single useful task in the real world, yet the Trump administration is promising a machine capable of scientific discovery by 2028, and Microsoft claims it will have a practical quantum computer by 2029. This disconnect between hype and reality has become the defining tension in quantum computing, where billions of dollars flow into an industry that experts say is still years away from delivering tangible benefits.

Why Are Quantum Computers Still Useless After Decades of Development?

The fundamental problem is simple: existing quantum computers are too small and error-prone to tackle commercially relevant problems. A quantum computer's power comes from its qubits, which represent information as probabilities rather than the ones and zeros used by classical computers. Think of a qubit like a coin spinning in the air; before it lands, it exists as both heads and tails simultaneously. This allows quantum machines to theoretically excel at simulating molecules, optimizing complex systems, and solving certain mathematical problems that would take classical supercomputers millennia to crack.

But here's the catch: building a quantum computer that's both precise enough and large enough to be useful remains extraordinarily difficult. Companies are pursuing different technological approaches, each with its own challenges and trade-offs.

• Superconducting Qubits: Google and IBM build qubits from superconducting circuits, the most mature approach but prone to errors that accumulate as machines scale up.
• Trapped Ions: Honeywell-affiliated Quantinuum makes qubits from individual barium ions, offering high precision but facing challenges in scaling to thousands of qubits.
• Neutral Atoms: Boston-area startup QuEra uses individual rubidium atoms, a newer approach with potential but unproven at scale.
• Majorana Particles: Microsoft's Majorana particle qubit, built using a thin wire attached to a superconductor, remains disputed by independent physicists who question whether the underlying physics even exists.

In June 2026, Microsoft announced its new Majorana 2 quantum computing chip and claimed it represented a hardware breakthrough that would accelerate its timeline to a practical quantum computer by 2029. The announcement was swiftly criticized by independent researchers.

"This is complete codswallop," said Henry Legg, a physicist from the University of St. Andrews.

Henry Legg, Physicist at the University of St. Andrews

Legg published a paper in Nature on June 24th criticizing Microsoft's quantum claims from a year prior, pointing to what he sees as major discrepancies between the company's peer-reviewed papers and its public press releases.

What's Driving the Hype if Quantum Computers Don't Work Yet?

The gap between promise and reality has not stopped governments and corporations from pouring money into quantum computing. Over the past decade, Google, IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, and numerous national governments and startups have invested billions in the technology. In May 2026, the Trump administration announced it would provide $2 billion in funding to nine quantum computing companies, with IBM receiving $1 billion of that total. IBM itself announced plans to invest more than $10 billion into quantum computing over the next five years.

The investment cycle follows a predictable pattern: a company announces a breakthrough, independent researchers cry hype, and investors continue injecting capital. In 2019, Google announced its quantum computer had performed a task faster than the best supercomputer, a feat called "quantum advantage." The demonstration involved generating random numbers and had no practical application, yet quantum computing investment in 2020 accounted for a third of all investments in the field up to that point, according to McKinsey.

Last October, Google claimed another quantum advantage demonstration. Researchers simulated molecules of 15 and 28 atoms to study their magnetic behavior in a specific scenario. A press release stated the demonstration showed that "a quantum computer can successfully run a verifiable algorithm on hardware, surpassing even the fastest classical supercomputers." But independent experts noted the experiment was contrived, designed specifically to show quantum advantage rather than solve anything useful.

"It doesn't simulate anything interesting," said Dries Sels, a physicist at Boston University. "It would be more interesting if they simulated something that classical methods have been trying for years and cannot do."

Dries Sels, Physicist at Boston University

What Problems Could Quantum Computers Actually Solve?

Proponents argue that quantum computers will eventually excel at problems classical computers struggle with. Theoretical research suggests quantum machines should be able to simulate molecules far more easily than supercomputers, potentially helping develop new battery materials or medicines. However, these applications remain theoretical.

One concrete application that motivated quantum computing research is cryptography. In 1994, computer scientist Peter Shor developed a quantum computing algorithm for factoring prime numbers that should be able to break RSA encryption, the ubiquitous family of algorithms used to secure banking and email communications. This capability motivated experts to develop post-quantum cryptography protocols that quantum computers should not be able to break. Ironically, cryptographers developed these more secure systems without needing a quantum computer to do so, making the original motivation somewhat circular.

On June 22nd, Trump issued an executive order aimed at migrating government computers to post-quantum cryptography by 2030 or 2031, treating quantum decryption as an imminent threat even though practical quantum computers remain years away.

How to Understand Quantum Computing's Real Timeline

• Current Reality: Existing quantum computers like Google's Willow are individual chips too primitive to break RSA encryption or implement drug molecule simulations, despite years of development and billions in funding.
• Near-Term Vision: Companies aim to build scaled-up machines by 2028-2029 that could theoretically solve specialized problems, though no timeline has been met so far.
• Long-Term Architecture: A practical quantum computer would likely be a specialized data center of many chips networked together or specialized chips within a supercomputer, accessed via the cloud, not a consumer device.
• Expert Skepticism: Independent researchers consistently note that company announcements overstate progress, and the field has a history of missed deadlines and exaggerated claims.

Researchers have made genuine progress in quantum computing over the past decade, but it has been largely incremental and too esoteric to immediately capture public imagination. The technology is also extraordinarily expensive. As the arguments between companies and independent experts continue to roil, the arc of quantum computing's progress resembles a cycle of hyped announcements, followed by academic criticism, followed by more fights, and now overconfident goals set by heads of state.

The fundamental question remains unanswered: what is a quantum computer actually good for? Until that question is resolved with a real, commercially relevant application, the industry will likely continue its pattern of bold promises, critical pushback, and continued investment based more on geopolitical competition with China than on demonstrated utility.