Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli 35

In the past, most computer designers would have their own fabs.

But once designs started getting very complicated, it started to make sense to separate concerns between designers and fabs.

What this means is that design companies would primarily write register transfer level, then use electronic design automation tools to get a final manufacturable chip, and then send that to the fab.

It is in this point of time that TSMC came along, and benefied and helped establish this trend.

The term "Fabless" could in theory refer to other areas of industry besides the semiconductor industry, but it is mostly used in that context.

The term "IBM Q" has been used in some promotional material as of 2020, e.g.: www.ibm.com/mysupport/s/topic/0TO50000000227pGAA/ibm-q-quantum-computing?language=en_US though the fuller form "IBM Quantum Computing" is somewhat more widely used.

They also internally named an division as "IBM Q": sg.news.yahoo.com/ibm-thinks-ready-turn-quantum-050100574.html

Their main innovation seems to be their 3D design which they call "Coaxmon".

Funding:

Psalm 46:10 from the bible:

In the context of quantum computing of the 2020's, a "classical computer" is a computer that is not "quantum", i.e., the then dominating CMOS computers.

Author: David Tong.

Summary:

Start by looking at: Maxwell-Boltzmann vs Bose-Einstein vs Fermi-Dirac statistics.

It is hard to beat the list present at Quantum computing report: quantumcomputingreport.com/players/.

The much less-complete Wikipedia page is also of interest: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_quantum_computing_or_communication It has the merit of having a few extra columns compared to Quantum computing report.

Also of interest: quantumzeitgeist.com/interactive-map-of-quantum-computing-companies-from-around-the-globe/