Their previous offerings have been 2 physical quantum computers that can be accessed over the cloud. One with 5 qubits, and another with 16 qubits[0]. These computers have had thousands of users who have run millions of quantum algorithms [1].

[0]: https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/52403.wss

[1]:https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/10/ibm-50-qubit-quantum-com...

Wait, I didn't think we had actual quantum computers yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

We've had quantum computers since the 90's. We just haven't had "useful" quantum computers yet [0].

An implementation of quantum computers that is currently flourishing is one that is built out of superconducting circuits. This makes it easier to scale the quantum computer because you can leverage existing nanoelectronic fabrication techniques [1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_quantum_comput...

> "We've had quantum computers since the 90's".

It wasn't until 2005 we had the first (probable) qubyte created at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

You don't need bytes to do computation.

Wouldn't a qubyte be 8 qubits?

The term doesn't make sense because you're not going to use groups of 8 qubits to represent characters on a screen.

We may actually need a new word for 2 qubits (dual-qubits? dubits?) because it seems 2 qubits are enough to break 1-bit of encryption, and I think I've read it's enough to simulate 1 atom, too.

I thought it was x qubits is equal to 2^x classical bits? So wouldn’t 2 “dubits” actually be four times (not twice as) better?

From your link: "A small 16-qubit quantum computer exists and is available for hobbyists to experiment with via the IBM quantum experience project."

From the link in that sentence: "The IBM Quantum Experience (QX) enables anyone to ... ... explore tutorials and simulations around what might be possible with quantum computing."

That sentences doesn't say the small 5 and 16 bit computers don't exist.

Edit: if you read the whole link, the key description is:

"IBM’s quantum processor is made up of superconducting transmon qubits, located in a dilution refrigerator at the IBM Research headquarters at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center.

Users interact with the quantum processor through the quantum circuit model of computation, applying quantum gates on the qubits using a GUI called the quantum composer, writing quantum assembly language code[1] or through a Python API.[2]"

Which is to say you have both a quantum computer and a simulator in IBM schema (which in the cloud 'cause you can't have supercooled chips in your basement), which is as one would expect running "real" quantum computing is going to be more expensive and uncertain now despite the hope it will give vast speed later.

We don't.

These types of replies aren't helpful. If you disagree with the claim please provide some specific reasons why.

The last news from IBM on HN about their quantum offering was that they had optimised the memory required for simulating quantum computers. 50-qubits seemed to the the upper limit before, but they managed to simulate a 56-qubit circuit. It was a good read: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05867

They've had real hardware for a while, though, and they have 5-qubit and 16-qubit machines that anyone can try via IBM Q experience.

So this is 100% legit as far as I'm concerned.

There is no such thing as a quantum computer in 2017. It is fantasy.

It's both a real quantum computer and a simulation - at the same time - but you don't know until you observe the results!

Not an expert, but I do find some of the phrasing weird. Early on they talk about improvements to connectivity and packaging, which would seem to only be relevant to real, live, physical quantum computers. There's also the professor talking about having students run programs on real quantum computers, without any qualifiers (that were included here, anyway) about how it's actually a simulation. Later it talks about software tools, including a Jupyter notebook for heaven's sake, without mentioning the vast gulf between that and what they seem to claim at the top of the article. I'm tempted to say that the author of this press release simply doesn't understand the difference.

Nothing specific to whether this claim is legitimate, but lately IBM has a tendency to make bold claims about tech that can't be backed up (e.g. Watson).

Let's be charitable: IBM marketing has that tendency.

IBM does still do some amazing research.