Plug a phone into a modern charger and the first 10 minutes are impressive. The next 20 are not.

This is not a defect. It’s the connected device protecting itself. As temperature rises during charging, a smartphone’s battery management system reduces the current it will accept, because heat accelerates the chemical degradation that permanently reduces battery capacity. The charger may be capable of delivering more, but the device simply stops taking it.

For anyone building products in the portable power category, this creates an uncomfortable gap between specification and experience. A device rated at 25 watts is accurate in the sense that it can deliver 25 watts. Whether it delivers 25 watts for the duration of a charge is a different question, and one the specification does not answer.

The specification gap

The gap matters commercially because it is invisible at the point of purchase and obvious in use.

Consumers compare wattage figures on packaging. They don’t compare thermal curves, because thermal curves are not published publicly. The result is a category where products differentiate on a number that describes peak output rather than sustained output, and where the actual user experience of two products with identical specifications can diverge substantially.

This is particularly acute in magnetic wireless charging. Inductive power transfer generates heat at both the transmitting and receiving coils, and the magnetic attachment that makes these products convenient also places the heat source in direct contact with the device it is charging. Convenience and thermal performance are working against each other by design.

The industry’s response for the past several years has been materials science. Graphite sheets, thermal interface materials, conductive housings, and heat-spreading layers have all improved how efficiently accumulated heat moves away from the source. Each generation has been incrementally better than the last.

But passive dissipation has a structural limitation: it can only move heat that has already been generated, and only as fast as the surrounding air will accept it. In a sealed, pocket-sized enclosure, that ceiling arrives quickly. Improving the materials slows the rate of temperature rise. It does not prevent the temperature rise.

Moving from dissipation to removal

The alternative is active thermal management, which is standard in stationary electronics and largely absent from portable ones for reasons that are easy to understand. Fans add volume, weight, moving parts, and noise. In a product category defined by portability, each of those is a meaningful cost.

At Anker, which manufactures charging and power products, engineering teams spent the past several development cycles working on whether that tradeoff could be made acceptable rather than eliminated. The approach involves several interacting systems: a micro centrifugal fan, dual airflow channels routed to avoid interference with the magnetic array, a three-layer graphene heat-spreading layer, and a control algorithm that modulates fan speed based on real-time temperature and battery state rather than running at a fixed rate. The result is that the Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro has become the world’s fastest and coolest wireless power bank.

In internal testing, at 77 °F (25 °C) ambient, the back of the power bank stays below 96.8 °F (36 °C) throughout wireless charging, 21.6 °F (12 °C) below the international standard limit of 118.4 °F (48 °C), for a comfortable grip. Comparable magnetic power banks in the same testing typically reached 113 °F (45 °C) or higher within 20 minutes. The functional consequence is that the connected device does not reach the threshold at which it begins reducing charge acceptance, so 25 watts of Qi2.2 magnetic wireless charging is delivered as a working rate rather than an opening rate. In practice, an iPhone 17 Pro reaches 50% charge in 25 minutes. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro’s premium performance in both charging speed and thermal management is certified by SGS, an independent testing and certification company.

The same principle applies in reverse. Recharging a power bank generates heat too, which is why devices in this category are often slow to recharge, leaving users with an empty accessory at the moment they need it. Active cooling during input allows the unit to accept 45 watts and reach 80% in 52 minutes.

What this suggests about the category

There is a broader pattern here worth naming, because it is not unique to charging.

When a category improves along a single axis for long enough, the constraint usually migrates somewhere else. Charging spent a decade optimizing power delivery. Power delivery is now, for most practical purposes, solved: the electronics can supply more energy than the receiving device is willing to accept. The binding constraint moved to thermal management, and the industry continued optimizing the axis it had always optimized, because that is the axis the specifications describe.

Recognizing when a constraint has moved is difficult precisely because the old metric keeps improving. Wattage figures have continued to climb. Products have continued to get faster on paper. The measurement stayed valid while quietly ceasing to describe the thing users experience.

For product organizations, the practical question is whether their specifications still measure the constraint or merely measure the capability. The two align until the constraint shifts and specifications rarely shift with it.

The transparency problem

A second implication follows from the first. If sustained performance differs meaningfully from peak performance, and if only peak performance is disclosed, then buyers cannot evaluate the products in front of them.

This is one reason Anker is adding displays on charging products. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro shows real-time power, temperature, battery level, and estimated time remaining. Some of that is user convenience. But some of it is a Anker stating a deliberate position—this category deserves to have the complete and accurate data made transparent to all.

Anker expects independent reviewers to test these claims and considers our internal numbers to be the correct outcome. The gap between specification and experience closes faster when the experience is measurable. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro will be available in the U.S. on September 17, 2026.

This content was produced by Anker. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Throughout the history of the computer chip, engineers have treated waste heat as an inevitable cost of a calculation. Hannah Earley, however, thinks it’s a design choice. Earley, 31, is cofounder and chief technology officer of Vaire Computing, a startup building chips that recycle energy usually thrown away as heat—a strategy known as reversible computing. Ultimately, she thinks, this approach could help make data centers (and our laptops and phones) much more energy efficient. 

When conventional computer chips perform calculations, they erase the information they no longer need along the way, dissipating energy as heat in the process. Earley compares the approach to racing through a city only to pump the brakes at every intersection: The car loses momentum and must burn more fuel to accelerate again. Reversible computing aims to keep the momentum going—instead of erasing information from the intermediate steps in a calculation, the circuit retains it, making it possible to run the computation backward and recover some of the energy.

While the idea was first proposed more than 50 years ago, it proved impractical to implement with existing transistors and circuits. Earley, though, has completely rethought the hardware needed to make energy recovery work. She designed a patent-pending type of resonator—a microscopic chip component that stores recovered energy for later reuse. “It’s really a glorified pendulum,” she says. Last year, Vaire announced a key breakthrough: a chip with a resonator that recovered more energy than it lost, even after the energy needed to power the component was taken into account. For a subfield that has existed mostly in theory, the result was proof of life.

“It’s clear they have something interesting,” says Igor Markov, a researcher in electronic design automation and a former professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Still, he says, the technology is quite early stage; the company will need “a series of increasingly realistic and convincing demonstrations to attract the industry support needed for commercialization.” 

She gradually became convinced that the connection between information, energy, and heat could change computers forever.

Earley’s journey into chip design started sooner than most. She began programming around the age of nine, starting with high-level coding for the web before digging into other programming languages like Perl and Java. She continued progressing to more and more abstract layers of computing, until she got all the way down to transistors.

She eventually enrolled in a PhD program at the University of Cambridge under the computational biologist Gos Micklem. She started out studying how materials such as DNA could be used to perform calculations, but a few months in, Micklem sent her the 1999 PhD thesis of Michael Frank, a pioneer in reversible computing. Earley read it once, felt skeptical, read it again, and sat with it for a few weeks. She gradually became convinced that the connection between information, energy, and heat could change computers forever.

The fascination completely redirected her PhD work. Earley studied the physical limits of computation and built software that could turn ordinary programs into reversible ones. “Eventually I wouldn’t let her put my name on any of her papers, because I felt that I couldn’t really stand up and give a proper talk about them,” Micklem recalls. “It was her stuff.”

After completing her degree in 2021, Earley met Rodolfo Rosini, a technology entrepreneur and investor. The pair cofounded Vaire that same year, and the company has since raised more than $12 million, hired Frank as a senior scientist, and begun turning the vision of reversible computing into real hardware.

Innovation, however, doesn’t happen overnight. During the winter of 2022 in Grinnell, Iowa, Earley spent weeks in her now-wife’s basement apartment as the wind chill outside reached roughly −40 °F, covering a whiteboard over and over again with schematics for the core piece of circuitry needed to make reversible logic work. By the time the design finally came together, after the couple had escaped the cold for Las Vegas, it felt less like an aha moment and more like a gradual wave of relief. “I’m not completely out of my depth,” she remembers feeling. 

Earley and her colleagues’ next challenge is making their drastically different chip fit into familiar devices and manufacturing systems. She believes that’s where the future lies—not in further refining existing chips but in rebuilding them from the ground up with an eye toward reversibility. “I want to tackle every part of how computers are built,” Earley says, “and rethink it in these terms.” 

For years, legacy technology has been a problem companies knew they needed to solve, but one they often struggled to tackle. The cost, complexity, and risk of replacing business-critical systems could make modernization feel like a disruption to manage instead of an opportunity to pursue. But with the rise in customer expectations and the changes AI brought to the economics of software development, that calculation is changing. Bupa’s modernization of its My Bupa mobile application offers a case study in what becomes possible when a legacy migration is treated as a business transformation rather than a technology rewrite.

Bupa CIO of health insurance Asifa Sherazi describes the risks of waiting for legacy systems to become an emergency: “The end-of-life technology is a risk that compounds quietly, and then arrives all at once.” For Bupa, moving its application from Xamarin to native Swift and Kotlin improved the app rating from 3.7 to 4.7, while the user-perceived crash rate fell by nearly 24 percentage points on Android and eight points on iOS. “What they’ll notice is that when they need us, often at a stressful moment, it just simply works,” Sherazi says.

Sanjeev Tripathi, senior vice president and region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys, contends that AI is helping change the equation. “The emergence of AI is fundamentally shifting the economics of modernization,” he says, reducing the effort, risk, and time traditionally associated with these programs. At Bupa, combining AI-assisted reverse engineering with forward engineering helped deliver the transformation in approximately 60% less time than would have been possible in the pre-AI era.

Sherazi and Tripathi also highlight the human dimension of modernization: preserving institutional knowledge, giving teams capacity to adapt, and creating an environment where employees can surface problems early.

Looking ahead, both experts see modernized platforms as foundations for more personalized, predictive and AI-driven experiences. The payoff of modernization may be less about replacing aging technology and more about building the flexibility needed for whatever comes next. 

“Modern platforms will become the base for far more intelligent AI-driven ecosystems, where AI is not just an add-on, but it is built into everything from design to operations. That’s how the modern platforms will evolve, and the customer experiences will become far more personalized and predictive,” says Tripathi. For Sherazi, that shift is already changing the questions organizations can ask: “It used to be, can our platform support that? Now, it’s: is that the right thing to do for our customers?”

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Infosys.

Full Transcript:

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

Our topic today is legacy modernization. Companies across industries continue to struggle to bring AI modernization to legacy technology stacks, increasing the risk of losing vendor support, degraded customer experience, and limited capacity for innovation.

Two words for you: future-ready foundation.

My guests are Asifa Sherazi, who is CIO of health insurance at Bupa, and Sanjeev Tripathi, who is senior vice president, region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys.

This podcast is produced in association with Infosys.

Welcome, Asifa and Sanjeev.

Asifa Sherazi: Thank you, Megan. Delighted to be here.

Sanjeev Tripathi: Thanks, Megan. Wonderful to be here. And good talking to you again, Asifa.

Megan: Thank you both so much for being here. Asifa, if I could start with you just to set the context for our conversation. There are seven million healthcare customers across the Asia-Pacific. Could you tell us a bit more about Bupa and the challenges it’s faced in its modernization plan?

Asifa: Yes, absolutely. Let me start with something about Bupa that shapes everything we do. We are a global healthcare organization. Think hospitals, clinics, dental, age care, digital health, alongside our insurance business. We reinvest back into the organization, so into our services, our capability, our teams, and our outcomes that we deliver for our customers. In Asia-Pacific, we serve around, as you said, seven million customers across health insurance and health services, individuals, families, corporate clients, patients. Our purpose, helping people live longer, healthier, happier lives is more than just a statement. It actually shapes our strategy, guides our investment decisions, and influences the choices our teams make every day.

Now, for most of our health insurance members, the day-to-day digital relationship with Bupa begins through My Bupa, our self-service platform. It’s the front door for managing cover, updating policy details, submitting claims, checking entitlements. Alongside of it, Blua plays a complimentary role. Where My Bupa helps members manage their cover, Blua helps them manage their health, digital healthcare services, clinical support, preventative health. And together, they let us move beyond transactional interactions towards more personalized, proactive care.

Here was our challenge. Our mobile app, My Bupa, was built on Xamarin, and Microsoft support for it ended sometime in 2024. We had extended support in place, so our customers remained protected throughout, but we were clear-eyed that this was a bridge, not a destination. The runway was finite, and it was shortening for us. We made the decision to modernize from a position of stability proactively for the long-term safety and experiences of our customer rather than waiting until circumstances forced our hand, because the platform carrying our most important customer relationship was in effect standing still while the world around it was moving.

Megan: Right. So you decided to act really proactively in that sense. And so, Asifa, what are some of the risks then of sticking with end-of-life technologies, and how will moving away from legacy technologies help you improve the customer experience?

Asifa: Yeah. Look, the end-of-life technology is a risk that compounds quietly, and then arrives all at once. We saw it in three ways. The first is security and compliance. Once a technology is out of vendor support, the flow of security updates and fixes changes fundamentally. In our case, we put extended support in place as a bridge so our customers stayed protected. But extended support buys you time, it doesn’t buy you a future. In healthcare, we hold some of the most sensitive information a person will ever share with an organization. That isn’t data to us, it’s trust. And trust is extraordinarily expensive to rebuild. We weren’t prepared to run that risk on a shortening runway.

The second is losing control of your own roadmap. How I’d explain that is iOS and Android don’t stand still. Every operating system release, every change to app store requirements becomes something that you react to rather than plan for. As each one slows you down a little further, over time, that opens a widening gap between what customers expect and what you can actually give them. We’re all customers. We don’t benchmark a health insurer against other health insurers. We benchmark against whatever app we used last.

And the third way was, and this is one we’d flag for peers, is the shrinking talent pool. Xamarin is legacy technology, and the engineering expertise available for it is limited. You end up with a critical customer platform supported by a narrowing group of specialists. That’s a workforce risk wearing a technology costume. We partnered with Infosys and we migrated the entire application estate from Xamarin to fully native Swift and Kotlin, and the customer outcomes are why we’re comfortable talking about this today. Our app rating moved from 3.7 to 4.7. Some of the stats that I’d love to share are that the user-perceived crash rate fell by nearly 24 percentage points on Android and eight points on iOS. The Android login success per visit doubled back up to 77%, and that’s one the team that is most proud of, because a login failure isn’t a technical event. It’s a person who wanted to check their cover and they couldn’t.

The team achieved 100% feature parity in a single release, and 90% of our active customer base moved to a new version, and they’ve, I think, downloaded nearly 1.8 million unique downloads. From our customers’ perspective, customers will never think about any of this as a technology change, and they shouldn’t have to either. What they’ll notice is that when they need us, often at a stressful moment, it just simply works, and that’s the outcome we were really after.

Megan: Those are some really striking results and statistics that you’ve shared there on the success of the migration. I mean, Sanjeev, could you talk a bit about why modernizing legacy technologies is so critical at this time, and how Infosys has approached that transformation journey with Bupa?

Sanjeev: Sure, Megan. To be honest, legacy modernization initiatives are not new, and there has always been a strong desire to drive modernization across the entire technology landscape. And Asifa covered all the points that I was going to cover about the risks that have been there. But I’ll reiterate, the reality is the industry has been held back by the cost complexity, and also the risks that have been associated with any legacy modernization initiative that has been undertaken historically.

As Asifa mentioned, customer expectations of what was acceptable five, 10 years back are simply not acceptable anymore. The customers today expect a seamless, intuitive, responsive interaction across every channel. And Asifa also covered the growing challenges around security, resilience, talent availability, and so on. Finding talent on legacy technology is extremely, extremely difficult, and that introduces risk in every organization and in every legacy platform, most of which are actually business-critical platforms as well. Security vulnerabilities are getting increasingly difficult to manage, and as I mentioned, finding deep expertise in older technologies is very, very difficult now.

So what has changed? What has changed is that we now have new tools that are available to us to address these challenges. The emergence of AI is fundamentally shifting the economics of modernization, and it’s doing that by helping organizations to reduce the effort, risk, and also the time that is traditionally taken for programs like these, and that is why we believe that the time is now for legacy modernization. In fact, in Infosys, we have six strategic value pools that we have identified in our AI-first value framework, which is publicly available, and legacy modernization is one of these six value pools. And in the market, we are seeing very strong interest across our client base, and they recognize that the opportunity to unlock both technical and business value is now.

With Bupa in particular, we approached the journey as a business transformation rather than simply a technology rewrite, and our approach had two key phases. One is reverse engineering, and then forward engineering. Let me just quickly cover what these two are.

Reverse engineering, what we did is we extracted and we understood the rules, the processes, and the logic within the legacy environment, and that’s a standard approach we took, we take in any legacy modernization program. What that does is it allows us to preserve the critical business functionality, but at the same time, it avoids the risks that often come with large-scale migration programs.

The second aspect is forward engineering, where we re-architected the solution to enable a reimagined customer experience. The objective is not just a feature-by-feature migration or ensuring feature parity, which is important, but it is even more important that since we’re investing this kind of money to create a modern platform that is scalable, maintainable, and is also capable for future innovation, and that’s what Asifa mentioned about you need to be in control of your own roadmap. You have to build a platform which is capable of supporting future innovation as well. We essentially ensured nothing was lost in translation, and we significantly improved the platform stability and long-term maintainability. And some of the metrics that Asifa mentioned reflects the meaningful improvement in customer experience as well.

Finally, just one more point before I close this question is the time to market. I spoke about the time is now, and because we’ve got the power of the tools that are available now. What AI allowed us is to accelerate the transformation dramatically. What would have traditionally been a long and complex modernization, was delivered in approximately 60% less time than what would have happened in pre-AI era, and that is the real story.

Megan: So AI in this context is a real enabler in terms of the economics and the speed and all of those things you’re talking about. If I could come back to you, Asifa, as much as modernization is a technology challenge, there is the human component as well, and I wondered if you could talk about how you prepared employees for these new technologies, and what challenges and solutions you faced on that front as well?

Asifa: The human side of it is what I’m really passionate about. Technology was only half the challenge. The real work was helping people move from what they knew to what was possible. Modernization isn’t just about replacing systems, it’s about giving teams the confidence, the capability, the clarity to embrace a different future, and that’s what determines whether change actually succeeds.

From that experience, there were three human challenges that stood out for us. The first one was scarcity of expertise on both sides of the transition, and like we said before, Xamarin is a legacy app. We were moving away from a legacy technology, supported by a rapidly shrinking specialist talent pool, and modernizing onto two native platforms. Documentation of that existing environment was limited. Much of the operational knowledge sat in individual experience and in the code base itself, and that created a real dependency on a small number of people. And for the team, it was a confronting reality and a powerful reminder that modernization isn’t just about technology imperative, it’s actually a resilience one.

What changed the dynamic was using AI to do the archeology. As Sanjeev mentioned, Infosys applied AI-assisted reverse engineering to harvest the legacy Xamarin code and extract the flows, the rules, the business logic, and generate native-ready user stories and acceptance criteria from it. The team did a lot of work. They mapped hundreds, I think nearly 1,500 regression scenarios to native epics, and that way, parity critical journeys were preserved by design rather than by memory. The human effect was just as important. Knowledge stopped living with a handful of individuals and became shared across the team, and our people could spend less energy holding institutional memory and more on designing and improving. So that was the first challenge.

The second challenge, Megan, was capacity and not willingness. Our business analysts were fully committed to ongoing feature delivery. And this is a live customer-facing app, and you cannot pause improving the customer experience while you rebuild underneath it. AI-driven discovery and documentation removed almost an estimated of 400 hours of manual BA effort, and that’s not a headcount story, that’s actually people not being asked to do two full-time jobs at once.

The third challenge that stood out was pace. Our original internal estimate was around 18 months, and thanks to Sanjeev and the team, almost like a one-team approach of how do we tackle this, the team delivered it in seven, and that’s exhilarating.

t’s also demanding, and both things need saying out loud. We mobilized cross-functional squads across engineering, architecture, testing, release, because managing parallel environments while protecting BAU commitments is such an emotional load as well as a logistical one. We leaned in hard alongside the team, being present rather than reporting from a distance, regular check-ins, genuinely listening to concerns, unblocking things quickly so people weren’t sitting waiting on a decision. And Megan, one thing I’ll say is when you’re compressing 18 months to seven, the most useful thing leadership can do is remove the friction in front of someone else and get out of their way.

But the thing that made the biggest difference was surprisingly simple, actually. We built a visual depiction of the transformation journey, and we updated it every month so the team could actually see how far they’ve come. Because when you deepen migration of this scale, it’s really easy to only see what’s left to be done, and being able to look back at the ground that’s already been covered gave people real intent and real momentum. And genuinely, it was exhilarating to watch. Watching the team’s pride became their fuel.

Megan: I love that idea of it being exhilarating, but exhausting. I think that’s a great description.

Asifa: Yeah. And the leadership lesson for all of us was just simpler than any of it. Programs like this have hard weeks, there’s going to be incidents, delay, difficult conversations. And Sanjeev, you and I have had those conversations many times. The job of leadership in those moments is to absorb the ambiguity rather than transmit anxiety, because if people feel safe telling you bad news early, there’s almost nothing you can’t fix. I say this plainly because it’s the truest thing about the whole program. I am so incredibly proud of this team, because what they achieved in seven months, while continuing to serve customers every single day without disruption, was genuinely remarkable. But what I’m really proud of isn’t the speed and it isn’t the engineering, it’s that the team never lost sight of who it was for, so every decision that we were making, and they came back, it just came back to the person at the other end of the app.

Megan: It sounds like you did an incredible job focusing on that people element just as much as the technology, which is so important. And Sanjeev, we’ve heard some of the incredible results Bupa has had with this, but more broadly, I suppose, looking across modernization use cases, where do you find that companies see the most ROI, and what advice do you have for leaders who need to focus on transformation at that legacy level?

Sanjeev: Thanks, Megan. That’s a very important and actually a very good question, because what we see is modernization ROI is sometimes viewed too narrowly through just a technology lens, and as Asifa mentioned, it is broader than just technology. Legacy modernization has aspects associated with business implications as well, so I’ll just cover that very quickly.

There are two dimensions, as I mentioned. One is technical ROI or technology-related ROI, and second is business ROI. On the technical side, and as you heard from Asifa as well, the biggest benefits come from faster time to market, platform stability and resilience, of course, and a lot of times, in fact, almost in all the cases, lower operating costs, and that is one of the aspects associated with some of the legacy modernization programs.

Besides this, access to broader, more readily available talent pool, and security management, and ensuring that the platforms are secure and free from, as much as possible, free from vulnerabilities in the current environment. At the same time, making it easier to innovate, releases become faster so that the feature delivery into the market becomes faster, and also able to respond to any new technology innovation that comes into play. But this is only on the technology side.

On the business side, however, the returns are often reflected in customer outcomes, and what we typically see are improvements in measures such as net promoter score, and in this case, for example, application ratings that you see on the app store. Both of which are actually very strong indicators of customer satisfaction and digital experience quality. I think it is important for us to cover, look at the ROI from both technology, but more importantly, from a business perspective.

The second part of your question was about what would be my advice to leaders, and I think Asifa covered it very well, where she mentioned that the one-team approach, the providing safe environment to the team to be able to say what is going well, but also what is not going well, and keeping your eye on the end outcome. I think those are very important things. But I would also like to add that don’t treat modernization as a technology initiative. It is a unique opportunity for us to rethink the business platform itself, and rather than pursuing a like-to-like migration, use the investment that you’re making to improve customer experience, simplify processes, and re-architect for capabilities such as real-time personalization and data-driven decision-making. The greatest returns come when technology transformation is directly linked to business outcomes.

And finally, and this is something that I have seen from personal experience multiple times, is you have to think from first principles. AI does not replace good engineering practices. It enables organizations to execute those practices faster, and it enables it faster, but also more consistently and at greater scale. The foundations of good architecture, sound engineering, and clear business objectives will continue to remain important, and in fact, their importance is going to increase as we progress. That, I think, is what I would say anybody embarking on a legacy modernization program should be focused on.

Megan: I love the idea that this is not just about migration. This a chance, as you say, to reimagine what you can deliver and what’s possible. Fantastic. Let’s close with a forward look. Asifa, what innovation are you looking forward to that wouldn’t have been possible before this, and what do you see on the horizon?

Asifa: There’s definitely lots of things on the horizon. But what excites us most isn’t specific technology, it’s that the question in our conversations has changed. It used to be, can our platform support that? Now, it’s is that the right thing to do for our customers? And that’s a profound shift.

There’s three things, Megan, that genuinely weren’t possible before, and we’ve touched on this a little bit, and Sanjeev’s touched on it as well. This first is speed as a permanent capability. Since launch, Android and iOS, the team has shipped multiple rapid-fire releases, including our migration to a new payment gateway. Builds are now completing four times faster, codes are reaching to testers in about an hour, and we’ve reduced our code base by 30%, and our application footprint’s reduced 18% as well. A simpler estate isn’t an aesthetic preference anymore, it’s what makes the next change cheap, and we’ve bought ourselves optionality to do that.

The second is quality at that speed, which is the part we’ve been most skeptical about five years ago. AI-driven triage and predictive defect analysis, we ran it across nearly 1,400 cases to focus on testing on the highest risk journeys, which meant we went live with zero security defects and zero high severity defects, and Sanjeev mentioned that just before. The old trade-off between moving fast and moving safely is being renegotiated right in front of us, so that’s the second point.

The third one is AI-driven accessibility testing, which the teams treated as a critical rather than an optional opportunity. In healthcare, people who most need to reach us are very often the people whom our poorly designed interface is a genuine barrier, and so being able to test that systematically at scale was a real advance for us as well.

And Megan, you mentioned on the horizon. It’ll be remiss of me not to take the name of agentic AI. The shift from AI that supports a task to AI that completes an outcome end-to-end with proper governance, human oversight at the key decision points. What this program showed us is that the constraint is no longer the models. It’s whether your platforms, data, processes are modern enough to let AI act safely, which is precisely why this work mattered now. Sanjeev alluded to it as well about that underlying architecture. Responsible AI as a source of advantage, not a compliance exercise, I would say. In health, if people don’t trust how you’re using their information, nothing else you build matters. We didn’t modernize to have modern technology. We modernized to earn the right to do the next thing, and to do it in weeks rather than years.

Megan: Absolutely. And now you have those foundations in place, like you say, all of these opportunities open up. Fantastic. And Sanjeev, just finally, as companies complete these migrations, what kinds of innovations and benefits are you seeing, and what do you expect in the next five years?

Sanjeev: Sure. Again, good question, Megan. The reason is there is no uniformity on how these migrations are being done even today. As I mentioned earlier, so where there is simple lift and shift of existing code base onto a new platform, a like-to-like replacement, the benefits generally tend to be limited. Where we apply first principles, thinking about re-imagining, re-architecting, and refactoring the system to establish foundations for a far more flexible system, where rules are not boxed into the architecture, but are managed in a way that changes can be incorporated faster, personalization can be achieved in real time, and time to market improves multifold. That’s where we are really seeing far more benefits coming through.

And to take the example of Bupa, it is a pretty clear step change, both in terms of customer experience and how fast teams can actually deliver now. I think the app ratings have gone up significantly. The customer experience has improved. Even simple things, such as login success rate, has improved quite significantly. And on the engineering side, we are now building and releasing features roughly about four times faster, and we are also seeing the migration of nearly 100% of the customers onto the new platform.

Now, if I look ahead over the next, you mentioned about next five years, I don’t know about five years, four years, but over the next few years at least, I think it is going to get very interesting, because modern platforms will become the base for far more intelligent AI-driven ecosystems, where AI is not just an add-on, but it is built into everything from design to operations. That’s how the modern platforms will evolve, and the customer experiences will become far more personalized and predictive. And even the way we build software will shift, with AI playing a much bigger role in the development process itself.

Megan: Fantastic. Really exciting changes on the horizon then. Thank you both so much.

That was Asifa Sherazi, who is the CIO of health insurance at Bupa, and Sanjeev Tripathi, senior vice president, region head of BFSI, healthcare, and public Sector for Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia at Infosys, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor at Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thank you so much for listening.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

Quantum computing has alternated between breakthrough darling and overhyped promise in technology circles. Its powerful new capabilities come with a threat to break current cryptography, but for business leaders navigating the noise, the signal should be clear: post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is a manageable evolution, not a crisis.

The mathematics behind today’s encrypted digital transactions may yield to quantum computers one day, but the transition to quantum-resistant algorithms is neither sudden nor insurmountable. For executives concerned about disruption, cost, or complexity, a structured and phased approach exists with trusted technology partners like Intel that are already beginning to deliver the infrastructure to make it possible.

A natural evolution, not a cliff edge

The “quantum threat” narrative often swings between two extremes: imminent catastrophe or distant irrelevance. The reality occupies a more pragmatic middle ground. Quantum computers are highly specialized accelerators that exploit quantum physics to solve specific hard problems. They have the potential to crack modern encryption, but they will not replace classic servers overnight, nor will they instantly break every encryption protocol on the internet. What they will do is gradually shift the security landscape, much as previous cryptographic transitions have done over the past three decades.

In late 2024, the Global Risk Institute, a Toronto-based financial services think tank, surveyed 32 quantum computing experts on when a quantum computer could break a 2048-bit RSA key within 24 hours. An average of optimistic and pessimistic estimates from the experts gave it an even 50-50 probability of reaching this code-breaking milestone by 2040. This timeline, uncertain but measurable, creates space for deliberate planning rather than emergency reaction. The near-term focus should be on “harvest now, decrypt later” scenarios, where adversaries collect encrypted data today and then hold it for future decryption later when that capability becomes possible. This is particularly applicable for information requiring confidentiality beyond 10 years.

For most enterprises, this can be a manageable risk when addressed through methodical modernization.

Government signals as confidence builders

The U.S. government has issued new directives for National Security Systems (NSS), which would likely be first on the list for potential quantum attack. Beginning January 2027, CNSSP-15 states new NSS acquisitions must be capable of supporting Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 (CNSA 2.0) requirements for PQC algorithms standardized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and selected by the National Security Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency responsible for signals intelligence and information assurance. Implementation for new systems (with certain exceptions) is then required by 2031, with 100% adoption targeted by 2035.

For commercial enterprises, these timelines are not mandates, but could be signposts. They indicate where vendors, standards bodies, and auditors are headed, providing a reference architecture for responsible stewardship. Organizations can borrow this discipline without necessarily copying the exact timelines, using government guidance to calibrate their own risk tolerance and investment cadence.

Intel’s role: Infrastructure ready for the transition

Intel is at the heart of the AI revolution by delivering quantum-resistant capabilities across our product portfolio. This is not just aspirational roadmap language; it is starting to be shipping technology.

For instance, the Intel Xeon 6 Processor already incorporates quantum-safe memory encryption (AES-256) and microcode signing to protect processor integrity. Upcoming platforms will extend post-quantum algorithms to more firmware and software signing, device interconnects, attestations, and secure boot functions, aligning with the most stringent government and industry directives.

Post-quantum algorithms carry different key sizes and computational overhead than legacy methods. Intel addresses this through dedicated cryptographic accelerators, optimized libraries, and specialized CPU instructions that reduce latency and preserve service-level agreements. Technologies such as Intel QuickAssist Technology offload cryptographic workloads, enabling enterprises to adopt stronger algorithms without sacrificing performance.

PQC is not a processor-alone problem. System builders and application owners must take a comprehensive view spanning solid-state drives, network interface cards, operating systems, hypervisors, applications, and connected services. Intel is delivering its pieces of the stack, while collaborating with ecosystem partners to ensure interoperability and smooth transition paths.

A more in-depth discussion of post-quantum algorithms and attacks can be found in my recent blog posted on Intel’s Community forum: “Post-Quantum Crypto: Panic Like It’s 1999?“

A practical roadmap for enterprises

The path forward does not require upheaval, just discipline. Organizations can follow a phased approach that mirrors patterns emerging in government and critical infrastructure sectors:

• Approach PQC as modernization, not mitigation. Frame the transition as an opportunity to strengthen cryptographic foundations, reduce technical debt, and improve system maintainability.
• Leverage trusted partners. Technology suppliers like Intel are already shipping quantum-resistant capabilities with performance acceleration. Evaluate platform readiness and vendor roadmaps as part of procurement decisions.
• Start with visibility. Cryptography is embedded throughout modern technology stacks: not just in database encryption settings but in data at rest, data in transit, digital signatures, code signing, device identity, password hashing, and software update mechanisms. Start by mapping where cryptographic assets live, what algorithms protect them, and which data sets have the longest confidentiality requirements.
• Protect long-lived data first. Not all cryptographic uses age at the same rate. Encryption protecting long-lifespan intellectual property, personal data, or state secrets faces more immediate attention than short-lived session keys or rotating certificates. Focus initial investments on high-value, long-retention data stores and the trust anchors (root certificates, firmware signing keys) that underpin system integrity.
• Design for evolution and agility. Post-quantum algorithms are not simple drop-in replacements. They carry different key sizes, performance characteristics, and integration requirements that ripple through protocols, APIs, and hardware. Design systems that can transition algorithms without business disruption: testing compatibility, ensuring vendor roadmaps align, and engineering for rotation.

The bottom line

Quantum computing will reshape cryptography, but despite what occasional click-bait headlines say, it will not upend business overnight. The transition to post-quantum algorithms is a measured, multi-year journey, one that organizations can navigate with confidence by partnering with capable technology providers, prioritizing long-lived data, and designing for agility. Leaders who approach this as an engineering evolution rather than a threat response will not only be ready for whatever timeline quantum delivers; they will emerge with more robust, transparent, and maintainable cryptographic foundations across their platforms.

This content was produced by Intel. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

The machine that could change the world will be housed in a room that looks like a data center crossed with an ice cream factory. Inside will be some 100 stainless-steel cabinets, each about six feet tall and connected to a supply of liquid helium that keeps them only a few degrees above absolute zero. Inside those cabinets will be hundreds of chips, and on those, thousands of particles of light flying through a maze of optical switches and beam splitters. Each photon must be accounted for, because precisely measuring where it ends up will help answer questions that current computers might take millions of years to solve.

This computer, as described, does not exist. It’s the brainchild of a company called PsiQuantum, founded in 2016 by four physicists from UK universities. In a crowded field of deep-pocketed competitors with similarly fantastical visions, the company aims to be first to fulfill its promise.

In the years since the physicist Richard Feynman first envisioned them in 1981, quantum computers have promised to speed up everything from medical research to AI by harnessing the qualities of quantum particles. Unlike normal computer bits, which can be either a 1 or 0, quantum bits can exist in multiple states at once. And combining enough of those quantum bits together could produce a computer capable of tasks well beyond the reach of today’s conventional machines. But even today’s best quantum prototypes are too small and error-prone to do anything useful.

That makes PsiQuantum’s promises for what its computers will ultimately do all the more bold. Consider the company’s hopes for predicting the effects of cytochrome P450 enzymes, which often break down drugs in the body. If pharma companies knew more precisely how they would work on a particular molecule, they could design more effective medications faster. Estimating this for a specific drug can take over 10 years with today’s methods, says Philipp Ernst, vice president of quantum applications for PsiQuantum, but “we aim to get it down to four minutes.”

In a field full of such claims, PsiQuantum has attracted unusual investment and scrutiny for two reasons: It is one of the few companies aiming directly at building a large and useful machine, and it is already working with a major chip manufacturer to build its systems using existing semiconductor fabs. Its vision has attracted momentum: Last year, PsiQuantum raised $1 billion in funding and broke ground in Chicago on a site it’s building in partnership with local governments. It also has a second site in the works in Australia, which it promises will be operational—meaning hardware-ready—in 2027. And it’s one of just two companies (along with Microsoft) to reach the third stage of an intensive government evaluation program to see which quantum companies might succeed.

Evaluating whether PsiQuantum will do what it says is harder than, say, judging a drugmaker by its clinical trial results: Advances in quantum computing are incremental, opaque, and tough to verify from the outside. But the company is now approaching its prove-it moment, when years of closed-door work and hundreds of millions in investment will either culminate in a useful quantum computer or fall short. We could start to know which as soon as next year.

A new kind of machine

Terry Rudolph, one of PsiQuantum’s four founders, is soft-spoken and shaggy-haired. He was born in Malawi and learned only after earning his first physics degree that he is a grandson of the famed physicist Erwin Schrödinger. He later self-published a 150-page book to explain quantum computing to teenagers (my PR contact gave me a signed copy with a wink that said “We never expect anyone to actually read this,” but I can report that it is a funny and helpful book). 

Around 2014, Rudolph and his cofounders became increasingly convinced that the quantum breakthroughs they were finding to be possible in theory might also be possible in a real machine. They eventually left their academic positions and divided the tasks before them: Rudolph worked on theory, Mark Thompson on engineering, Pete Shadbolt on scaling the technology up, and Jeremy O’Brien on articulating the vision and finding investors (O’Brien served as CEO until February; he’s been replaced by Victor Peng, a veteran of the semiconductor industry). 

To understand why the quantum computer the company is building would be a big deal, consider how imprecise much of modern science remains. We cannot reliably predict, for example, which lithium-ion battery will catch fire or how quickly a critical aircraft component will corrode.

This isn’t just because these systems are complex, though they are. It’s that, at their core, they are governed by quantum mechanics. Subatomic particles don’t have well-defined properties—this location and that velocity—but instead occupy quantum states spread across many possibilities. And that in turn influences a range of atomic and molecular behavior. Schrödinger (Rudolph’s grandfather, remember) showed how to describe this haziness mathematically a century ago this year, but precisely carrying out the calculations on real-world systems quickly becomes unfeasible even for the best computers. Scientists cope with this gap using approximations, imperfect simulations, or experiments on animals.

PsiQuantum co-founder and chief scientific officer Pete Shadbolt (left), and machinery the company has built to manufacture its own barium titanate, a material with the perfect qualities for routing light particles (right).

Feynman, David Deutsch, and other physicists in the 1980s wondered if we could do better. Maybe such complexity could instead be modeled using a new kind of machine. Rather than using transistors that are only ever on or off, this one would use particles held in quantum states, manipulate them to perform calculations, and then measure them at the end for an answer. Using quantum systems to simulate quantum systems would for the first time allow a simulation of physics and chemistry that directly reflected reality. It would be an invaluable tool for designing new drugs, materials, or really anything affected by quantum mechanics. Revolutionary, in other words.

Humankind’s leaps in understanding how nature works have often resulted in the invention of powerful new tools, Rudolph told me. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution coincided with our ability to calculate and simulate the laws of Newtonian mechanics, the laws of thermodynamics,…the laws of classical electromagnetism,” he says. “Whenever we have more power to calculate and simulate and understand things, we build incredible machines that come from it.” He sees something similar coming with quantum computers.  

Chasing photons

One mystery has always been which quantum thing—ions, atoms, or something entirely new engineered with quantum properties—could be made stable and controllable enough to use as a qubit, the basic unit in the quantum computing world. Quantum systems are delicate, and observing any particular particle causes it to collapse into one state rather than a superposition of multiple states. If this happens during the computation rather than at the end, it produces an error that must be corrected for. Too many of these means the computer fails to produce a useful answer. 

Just as engineers in the early days of aviation weren’t sure whether airplane wings would be fixed or flap like a bird’s, we’re not yet sure which of these quantum things will work best. Google and IBM are betting on superconducting qubits, superconducting circuits made of aluminum or other metals. Intel is using electrons. PsiQuantum is using photons, the particles that make up light.

“Photons have lots of nice things going for them,” Rudolph says. They can maintain quantum states for a long time; indeed, the photons in the universe’s cosmic microwave background may have done so for billions of years. But photons also move fast and scatter easily. More importantly, two photons are more likely to pass through one other than interact. That makes them a challenging candidate for quantum computation, in which qubits need ways to influence one another. 

For a while, this last flaw seemed to doom the idea of quantum computing with light. But in 2001, researchers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Queensland found a loophole. They discovered they could essentially fake interactions between photons by sending the light particles through a network of beam splitters and detectors. Their paper changed everything. PsiQuantum was created to make the theory a reality.

Size was the first problem; previous plans would have required a computer as large as California. Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, who was a PhD student of Rudolph’s in the early 2010s (after almost becoming a professional violinist instead), thought of a way for the machine to be smaller. 

The basic process since then has been this: First create photons with lasers and then “entangle” them, exploiting a quantum phenomenon in which the particles no longer have individual states but instead share one. Next, route them through a maze of gates that perform computations, and finally read out details of their quantum state at the end, all while tracking and correcting for the errors that occur. Succeeding at each of these steps millions of times is not so much an engineering hurdle as a brick wall. And building the supply chain—like manufacturing new materials with the qualities to route individual photons around—is arduous.

To get a sense of it all, last year I joined Shadbolt at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, in Menlo Park, California. The center has helped produce several Nobel Prizes and played a role in the 1968 discovery of quarks, fundamental building blocks of matter that make up protons and neutrons. But PsiQuantum set up shop there essentially to siphon liquid helium from SLAC’s giant cryoplant. This is what the company uses to cool its computing cabinets down to deep-space temperatures.

Right now the cabinets operate at 2 K, or -456 °F, but the goal is to be able to run them slightly warmer—at a balmy -452 °F. Most quantum approaches require the whole machine to be cooled to superconducting temperatures, so that much of the expense in running it will actually be spent on refrigeration. But photonic computers require only one piece to be this cold—the detectors that measure single photons at the end of the computation. And the required temperature can be a bit higher. (PsiQuantum said in May that it will spend some of the $100 million award in CHIPS Act funding it’s slated to get on these detectors). 

The siphoning setup was a temporary solution; PsiQuantum now has its own cooling system at its testing facility in Milpitas, California, and is setting up a larger one at its production site in Australia next year. These helium systems represent some of the biggest capital expenditures for any quantum company and will consume a significant chunk of PsiQuantum’s $1 billion funding round.

In the afternoon we drove to a lab in San Jose, where I donned a cleanroom suit—a head-to-toe covering that keeps dust at bay—to watch the manufacture of a blueish crystal called barium titanate. 

It’s prized by PsiQuantum because it quickly and reliably routes light particles with very little electrical input, keeping the precious photons undisturbed as they move through the circuit. But for all barium titanate’s theoretical value to the company, its structure makes it a pain to manufacture, and the material wasn’t available at scale when PsiQuantum got its start. The company, in what Rudolph told me was an agonizing decision, opted to make it in-house, requiring a massive investment. I saw a technician—operating at what looked like a giant pressure cooker—adding the base elements to several hoppers; then I watched through a porthole as the elements got heated, vaporized, and finally crystallized into a thin layer on a wafer disc. At that time each disc took about 12 hours to make; the company now says several are produced each day. The discs then get shipped to the chipmaker GlobalFoundries in Malta, New York, where PsiQuantum’s chips are made.

The company has invested heavily in making its own barium titanate, a material whose delicate crystalline structure is tedious to manufacture.

PsiQuantum’s bet is that this entire supply chain, byzantine as it might sound, will make the company more efficient than its competitors. That’s because, if you squint, it looks like a souped-up and high-precision version of the existing supply chain for silicon photonic chips, another type of technology that transmits information with light—one that’s already used in data centers. If PsiQuantum produces its chips at scale, it can take advantage of tools and infrastructure that already exist.

But it’s not a given that one working chip can easily be wired up to thousands more. That’s why the company is testing in phases: Its Milpitas site has connected three cabinets together, with 250 chips in each, but the next step is to scale the systems up and see whether the company’s techniques for correcting errors can keep up. Once the cooling system arrives at the Australian site late next year, the company says, it aims to connect about 100 cabinets together. Then PsiQuantum will work up to running the world-changing algorithms it has promised.

The timeline for this, it’s worth noting, is up for debate. News articles have said that 2027 is the year that PsiQuantum aims to have its first full-scale quantum computer come online at its Australian site, but the company insists the deadline has been misread, and that it only intends for its facility to be “operational” by the end of next year. That means cooling systems in place and ready for hardware to be installed, but no promises about what size computer will be ready. In an industry where timelines are perpetually in flux yet central to how companies are judged, that distinction isn’t trivial.

Into the unknown

The outsider with perhaps the best guess of whether PsiQuantum will succeed is the Pentagon. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—the Pentagon’s research and development arm—has been running an initiative to determine which of the boastful quantum companies might actually deliver. In the last year and a half, the heads of the program have been sounding more confident. Joe Altepeter, who ran the program until last year and proudly described himself as a “quantum skeptic,” told me in March 2025: “I am more optimistic now than I have been at any point in the past 10 years.” And in a statement earlier this year, his successor, Micah Stoutimore, said “it now seems likely that someone will build a utility-scale quantum computer by 2033,” referring to a machine that generates more value from its calculations than it costs to build and operate. 

The program has been scrutinizing PsiQuantum’s systems since 2023, and last year placed the company into the third stage of a benchmarking initiative meant to determine whether the technology will actually work. But to the rest of the industry, PsiQuantum is sort of a black box.

“It is very hard for an outsider to evaluate,” says Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin who runs a popular blog that often covers the industry. Other companies, like Google and Quantinuum, have regularly published results over the years demonstrating chips and systems with incremental improvement, publicly laying the engineering groundwork needed to eventually build large machines.

PsiQuantum has instead focused squarely on a commercial goal—a computer with one million qubits, which is the scale that researchers expect to unlock research currently not possible on normal computers. PsiQuantum often differentiates itself with this industrial-scale goal, but IBM, which debuted a development road map in 2020, has been progressively building bigger and bigger systems. It initially targeted 2028 for a large-scale, error-corrected system, a deadline that now appears to have been pushed out to 2030.

Making it useful

On top of actually building the machine, a major focus for PsiQuantum is getting the rest of the world to develop a plan for how to use it. PsiQuantum has announced partnerships with customers including the defense giant Lockheed Martin, which intends to use it for materials design; the automaker Mercedes, which wants it for battery design; and the aerospace manufacturer Airbus.

That these companies don’t have a computer to experiment with is not a problem, according to Ernst at PsiQuantum. “There’s a PlayStation 6 probably coming up from Sony next year or the year after, and people are programming those games right now,” he says. “This is, in principle, very similar.” (It’s a glib analogy but not an entirely empty one; the quantum algorithms for solving a research problem can be cracked even if there is not yet hardware to run them on.) 

The idea is that experts in quantum information from both PsiQuantum and its customers will be able to translate design problems—say, the requirements for a battery in a Mercedes electric vehicle—into algorithms the computer could solve. The company offers a software package called Construct, which companies can use to design their own algorithms that might one day run on the computer.

The future of quantum computing hinges on these algorithms. Quantum computers get painted as a speedup for everything, but in reality, they’re suited to a subset of problems, and answering a question with this sort of machine requires the question to be formulated with very specific types of algorithms. People spend entire careers working on such algorithms, even if the computers to run them don’t exist yet. At their core, they use the rules of quantum mechanics to manipulate probabilities in ways that ordinary computers can’t. 

The most famous example, and a reason the government is so interested in quantum computers, is Shor’s algorithm. It was developed in 1994 by the theoretical computer scientist Peter Shor and could effectively break many forms of encryption used online, for everything from credit card numbers to military intelligence. The thing keeping the world together, for now, is that nobody has a computer to run the algorithm on (and security experts are already launching new encryption methods that could withstand attacks from a quantum computer). PsiQuantum is researching how long its systems might take to run Shor’s algorithm.

PsiQuantum’s chips are manufactured at GlobalFoundries in Malta, New York, and tested at company headquarters in California. Both PsiQuantum and GlobalFoundries have been awarded federal CHIPS Act funding.

The company also published a paper in December in collaboration with Airbus, essentially seeing if a new algorithm developed by the authors could beat a classical computer in modeling fluid dynamics, like the turbulence around an airplane wing. Andrew Childs, an expert in quantum simulation, told me PsiQuantum achieved only a moderate speed increase over what today’s computers can do. “It’s probably unlikely that speedups like this will have a significant practical impact until we have very large-scale quantum computers,” he said in an email. (When I asked Ernst, he agreed the improvement was modest.)

Some of the algorithms PsiQuantum is working on are not expected to be perfected or even used in the first applications of its computer. Instead, its initial tasks might be more along the lines that Feynman envisioned way back in 1981: simulating the smallest particles of our world. 

The company’s most significant research in this realm is in modeling quantum chemistry. Take those pesky P450 enzymes. More precisely understanding how they operate, PsiQuantum says, would allow for faster drug development and testing.

Last year, PsiQuantum published methods for doing these sorts of chemistry calculations on a quantum computer, along with another paper demonstrating an algorithm that can simulate the collision of two molecules and estimate the likelihood of different outcomes femtosecond by femtosecond (there are one quadrillion femtoseconds in a second). It’s a remarkable amount of detail not currently possible with today’s technology, and it would allow drug and materials researchers to simulate new chemical interactions. 

Dominic Berry, who developed some of the core techniques used in the collision paper but isn’t involved in PsiQuantum, says the company made impressive improvements, but to do the simulations scientists are most curious about would require the algorithm to be made even faster and PsiQuantum’s early computer to have fewer errors than currently expected.

Until PsiQuantum’s computers are up and running, the breakthroughs that these research papers tease remain in the realm of theory. It’s a space where Rudolph operates quite comfortably. He told me that Alan Turing created the theory of classical computing with pen and paper, imagining how the 1s and 0s would be represented in the machine, and how with the right approach to logic you could compute almost anything. 

“But there is no way that by hand, with a pen and paper, Turing was ever going to produce—you know—Minecraft and Facebook,” he says. That took more than 70 years of tinkering (during which we fortunately created more useful things than Minecraft and Facebook).

For all the time Rudolph spends dreaming up things quantum computers might do, in other words, people working on those problems are still stuck with pen and paper for now: “Until you have the actual machine in hand, you don’t have the opportunity to really explore its potential.”

This story was updated on July 14 to clarify how long DARPA’s quantum program has been evaluating PsiQuantum.