Table of Contents
In a university lab late one evening, a quantum physicist stares at her experimental prototype and wonders if it will ever leave the confines of academia. “Maybe it’s 20 years too early to build a product from this,” she muses. Down the hall, an innovation manager fields a call from an investor who insists only tech giants like IBM and Google can make money from quantum. Such scenes are playing out at campuses worldwide. They reveal a quiet tug-of-war between extraordinary scientific progress and the cautious voices whispering that quantum technology isn’t ready for prime time. These whispers – call them myths – can profoundly shape the fate of university spin-offs.
Universities are hotbeds of quantum innovation, from cutting-edge quantum computing prototypes to novel quantum sensors and secure communication systems. Yet technology transfer offices (TTOs) and entrepreneurship teams supporting these breakthroughs often encounter skeptical questions. Isn’t it too early? Is there even a market? Should we just license the patents and wait? Myths like these can hold back promising quantum ventures, keeping transformative ideas stuck in the lab. Meanwhile, investors and industry partners circle the quantum field with equal parts excitement and caution, unsure what is science fiction and what is viable business. To bridge this gap, we need to unpack the myths – and see what’s really happening out there. As we’ll find, the story of quantum commercialization today has echoes of past innovation waves in biotech, semiconductors, and AI. And, as with those fields, early movers who separate myth from reality can seize an outsized advantage.
Myth 1: “It’s Too Early – Quantum Tech Is Decades Away”
Not long ago, a common refrain about quantum technology was that practical applications were always decades in the future. This myth persists in university corridors: “Why form a startup now? True quantum impact is 10 or 20 years away.” It’s an understandable sentiment. Quantum computing, for example, has faced notorious challenges – fragile qubits, error correction hurdles – leading many to assume useful products are perpetually distant. Even some scientists have joked that quantum’s breakthrough is 10 years away and always will be. This cautious timeline, however, is rapidly being revised.
Reality: While certain milestones (like large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers) are still on the horizon, the era of quantum commercialization has already begun. In fact, insiders argue that quantum tech might be closer to mainstream use than outsiders expect. Venture investor Karthee Madasamy has suggested that quantum computing is “still underestimated” and could see commercial applications “only a few years” away. He likened the situation to how an AI breakthrough like ChatGPT seemed to come out of nowhere – catching society by surprise after many had assumed truly conversational AI was distant. Similarly, quantum advancements could arrive faster than the skeptics predict. Quantum researchers themselves echo this optimism. Christopher Monroe, a leading physicist and co-founder of IonQ (a successful university spin-off), recently said about their latest quantum system: “We’re not talking a decade away here anymore.” In other words, real quantum machines capable of tackling useful problems are emerging in the present, not some far-off future.
Historical analogy can be helpful: consider the biotech revolution. In the 1970s, the idea of genetic engineering leading to near-term products seemed “too early” to many established academics. Yet Genentech was founded in 1976 on the bold bet that recombinant DNA technology was ready to be commercialized. Within just a few years, Genentech produced synthetic human insulin and went public in a frenzy, kickstarting the biotech industry. What if those founders had waited 20 years “until the science is ready”? They would have missed the wave. The same goes for semiconductors – in the 1950s, some thought using silicon transistors in computers was premature, but startups like Fairchild Semiconductor forged ahead and ended up creating Silicon Valley. Every deep-tech field has inflection points when “too early” flips to “just in time,” and in quantum we are at such a point now.
We already see early markets forming for quantum-derived technologies. Quantum random number generators and quantum cryptography devices are being sold for security applications. Niche but important uses of quantum computing – in drug discovery, finance, and logistics – are being explored via cloud-based quantum services. Companies and government agencies aren’t waiting for a perfect quantum computer; they are engaging with what’s available. For example, D-Wave Systems, a pioneer in quantum computing, has been selling and operating quantum computers since 2007. It counts corporate and government entities like Lockheed Martin, Google, NASA, Los Alamos National Lab, Volkswagen, and even a food conglomerate among its customers. These organizations aren’t buying quantum tech for science fiction value – they’re using it to experiment with real-world optimizations and simulations today. In short, the first trickles of commercial quantum value are already flowing.
Crucially, starting “early” allows quantum entrepreneurs to shape the direction of the technology. By engaging now, university spin-outs can establish intellectual property, refine hardware and software through iteration, and cultivate relationships with early adopters. If everyone assumed it was too early and stood on the sidelines, progress would stall. Instead, dozens of quantum startups worldwide are tackling the technical challenges head-on, ensuring that when the big breakthroughs arrive, they will be ready with matured solutions. It’s a classic case of the early bird catching the worm – or in this context, the early lab catching the qubit. Far from being a fool’s errand, getting in early is what positions a venture to lead when the field truly takes off. As we’ll see next, it’s not just the IBMs of the world driving this forward – nimble startups and university spin-offs are sprinting ahead.
Myth 2: “Only Big Companies Can Commercialize Quantum”
Walk into many university meetings about a potential quantum spin-off and you’ll hear another myth: “This is interesting science, but shouldn’t an IBM, Google, or other giant handle it? We’re just a small lab.” It’s an assumption that quantum technology demands such vast resources and specialized talent that only the tech titans or government mega-projects can succeed. After all, companies like IBM and Google have built 50+ qubit processors and garner headlines; governments are pouring billions into national quantum programs. It’s easy to conclude that the little guys have no chance. This myth can discourage university teams from even trying – they imagine a David vs. Goliath scenario, with Goliath guaranteed to win.
Reality: In truth, the landscape of quantum commercialization is teeming with startups, many of them spun out of universities, that are not only competing with the big players but often partnering with them. History shows that disruptive innovations frequently come from startups or smaller firms. Just as two young entrepreneurs in a garage (Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak) upended the behemoth IBM in personal computing, today’s quantum startups are agile speedboats next to the ocean liners of Big Tech. They can explore novel ideas and pivot faster. In fact, the synergy between startups and big companies is a defining feature of the current quantum industry. Startups have partnered with big tech companies to offer remote access to a broad range of quantum computers. For example, Amazon and Microsoft don’t build all their own quantum hardware – instead, their cloud platforms host machines from startup players like IonQ, Rigetti, Quantinuum, and others. This means even the tech giants recognize the innovation coming from startups and are effectively acting as distributors and supporters of those new technologies.
University spin-offs have scored impressive wins that bust the notion that only incumbents can make headway. IonQ is a prime example. Founded in 2015 by two professors (from University of Maryland and Duke), IonQ started as a tiny venture with an unconventional trapped-ion approach to quantum computing. Within just six years, IonQ achieved something none of the tech giants had yet done – it became the world’s first publicly traded pure-play quantum computing company. IonQ’s success was rooted in academic research and a small-team startup ethos, yet it leapfrogged into a leadership position, with systems competitive to those of IBM and Google. Today, IonQ’s devices are available on major cloud services and the company has partnerships providing broad access to its machines. It turned its modest academic origins into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, all while competing directly with far larger corporations. If that doesn’t dispel the “only big companies” myth, consider also that Microsoft’s venture fund invested $450 million in PsiQuantum, a startup aiming to build an optical quantum computer. Big firms aren’t just tolerating startups – they’re betting on them.
Even in the hardware supply chain, startups are carving out niches that support the whole ecosystem. A telling case is QuantWare, a small Dutch spin-off from TU Delft. Rather than trying to beat IBM or Google at the end game, QuantWare focuses on making advanced quantum processor chips and selling them to whoever needs cutting-edge components. They have developed a unique 3D chip architecture for scaling qubits and are already shipping their quantum chips and amplifiers to labs in 20 countries. In effect, they aspire to be the “TSMC of quantum”, supplying anyone – including big companies – with the core hardware to build quantum computers. As QuantWare’s CEO noted, every breakthrough by Big Tech “reinforces [our] value proposition”, because those giants may turn to specialized vendors for parts. This dynamic mirrors the semiconductor industry, where many big brands (Apple, Nvidia) rely on specialized chip manufacturers. It shows that a small spin-off can thrive by serving the market rather than trying to own it end-to-end.
We also see major corporations actively seeking collaboration with quantum startups through incubators and accelerators. The inaugural cohort of the Duality quantum accelerator (run by the University of Chicago and partners) connected its startups with dozens of corporate mentors and partners, including Fortune 500 companies. As the program’s leaders observed, those startups “benefited greatly from the industry exposure and strong connections” to corporate partners in the quantum ecosystem. In other words, big companies are not isolating themselves; they are engaging with spin-offs for mutual benefit. The myth of needing massive scale upfront is also dispelled by the lean approach many quantum startups take. They often start with modest prototypes or software that works with existing quantum devices, proving value incrementally. For instance, quantum software startups can begin delivering value by optimizing algorithms for today’s small quantum processors or even quantum-inspired algorithms on classical machines, building a customer base long before a universal quantum computer exists. This strategy, which a garage-sized team can execute, belies the notion that only Google-level resources can play.
In summary, while giants like IBM, Google, and Intel are certainly pushing the field (and collaborating closely with academia), they do not have a monopoly on quantum innovation. University spin-offs and agile startups around the globe are attracting top talent – often the very PhDs who pioneered the research – and significant capital. Governments and investors have put billions into these ventures, precisely because they see startups as crucial to the quantum race. The playing field is far more level than one might think. A small team with a breakthrough idea (say a new qubit design or a novel quantum algorithm) can quickly become a market leader in that niche. David can coexist with Goliath, and sometimes even outmaneuver him. Believing otherwise only discourages the entrepreneurial spirit that the quantum sector needs. In reality, it will be the combination of big-company resources and startup ingenuity that brings quantum tech to the world – and universities are where much of that startup ingenuity originates.
Myth 3: “There’s No Market Yet for Quantum – No One to Buy It”
Another pervasive myth is that even if you build a quantum-based product or service, no customers exist today to justify a business. Skeptics say the use cases are too nebulous, industries are not prepared, and paying clients for quantum solutions are essentially nonexistent until the tech matures. A faculty member might think, “Why form a company now? Who would we sell to? Better to wait until there’s a clear market.” This belief can paralyze spin-outs, pushing them to postpone commercialization until some undefined future when demand magically appears. It’s true that quantum technology targets problems often at the very edge of current capabilities, and many potential customers are still in exploratory phases. But to conclude there’s no market is to overlook how emerging technologies find early footholds.
Reality: Markets for quantum technologies are forming here and now – they may be early-stage and specialized, but they are real. History reminds us that transformative tech often starts in niche markets or pilot projects before exploding into widespread use. In the 1950s, there wasn’t a mass consumer market for computer chips – the early market was military and research applications. In the 1980s, the market for genetic engineering was initially in rare medicines, not yet the huge biotech sector we see now. Likewise, for quantum, a combination of forward-thinking industry adopters, government initiatives, and immediate pain points in certain domains is driving initial demand. Essentially, the market is “yet” small, but not “nonexistent.” And importantly, by engaging early customers, quantum startups learn and co-develop solutions, which grows the market further.
Consider quantum computing services: Companies in finance, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, and logistics are actively experimenting with quantum algorithms to get a competitive edge when the hardware improves. These aren’t sci-fi dreamers; they’re firms like JPMorgan Chase (exploring quantum for portfolio optimization and cryptography), Volkswagen (using quantum annealing to optimize taxi routes and factory schedules), and Pfizer (researching quantum chemistry for drug discovery). A dramatic example came a few years ago when Volkswagen partnered with D-Wave to optimize traffic flow in Lisbon using a quantum algorithm – routing buses in real time to reduce congestion. That pilot, the first of its kind, showed that even municipal transportation could be an early “customer” for quantum-powered solutions. It was a proof-of-concept, not a mass deployment, but it demonstrated market interest: a major automaker and a city willing to invest resources to try quantum computing in a practical setting. Similarly, in the insurance sector, companies like AXA and Munich Re have quantum teams looking at how quantum algorithms might optimize risk analysis. They are effectively customers in development – engaging with startups and research consortia now to prepare for a near-future advantage.
On the hardware side, markets are emerging for specific quantum technologies like quantum communication and sensing. Quantum key distribution (QKD) for ultra-secure communication is already in commercial use by banks and governments worried about cybersecurity. In fact, an entire quantum communication network has been deployed in countries like China and is being built across Europe – with companies providing the lasers, satellites, and receivers for these systems. Those companies (often spin-offs from university labs) are selling units and services, even if the volumes are still modest.
Another fast-developing area is quantum sensors. These devices (for example, gravity sensors, magnetometers, and quantum clocks) exploit quantum effects to achieve measurements unattainable by classical sensors. The market for precision sensing in geology, navigation, and defense is substantial. A case in point: the University of Birmingham spinout Delta g is building quantum gravity sensors to map underground structures (think detecting tunnels, mineral deposits, or surveying construction sites without digging). Before even fully productizing their device, they attracted “innovator customers.” The startup notes that companies in civil engineering, utilities, and mining have expressed strong interest in faster, more accurate underground mapping. Delta g won a £2.4 million contract from the UK Department of Transport to further develop its sensor for locating buried infrastructure – a clear signal that a customer (the government in this case) is willing to pay for a quantum-enhanced solution to a pressing problem (avoiding costly surprises when digging). These early adopters validate the market need. As Delta g’s CEO put it, countless industries “dig holes” every day without knowing what’s below – and if you can give customers data “better than they have now,” they will come knocking. Indeed, the company speaks of a $19 billion total market for such sensors spanning navigation, mining, and healthcare, hinting how a seemingly niche quantum device can address broad, valuable applications.
Moreover, market creation is a two-way street. Sometimes customers don’t know they need a technology until they see it in action. This was true with the internet – few businesses in 1990 had “internet strategy” on their roadmap. But once early internet companies showed what was possible, a tidal wave of demand followed. Quantum entrepreneurs are in a similar position: they must both seek out existing demand and educate potential customers about new possibilities. Many quantum startups therefore engage in consulting or joint research with industry as a bridge to commercialization. For example, quantum software firms might work with a bank’s R&D team to tailor an algorithm to their data – the bank “gets it” after that experience and becomes a paying client for future quantum computing access or software. What starts as a pilot or exploratory project can convert into long-term business as the technology improves. By working hand-in-hand with pioneers in various industries now, spin-offs ensure that a market will be there when their product is ready. And those industry pioneers are often eager to co-invest (with funds, time, and expertise) because they don’t want to be left behind. There’s a competitive dynamic: if “no one” is ready for quantum, why are so many Fortune 500 companies building quantum teams and why have analysts projected multi-billion dollar markets this decade? In fact, market research forecasts suggest a steep rise in quantum tech revenue over the next few years – Juniper Research estimates global quantum technology revenues will grow from about $2.7 billion in 2024 to $9.4 billion by 2030. Those numbers include hardware, software, and services across computing, communication, and sensing. It’s still small compared to mature industries, but clearly not zero. The growth trajectory indicates that early revenues are already being captured and will accelerate as capabilities expand.
The takeaway is that university spinouts cannot afford to sit back and wait for a mythical market to appear. By engaging now – through pilot projects, consortiums, cloud services, or niche products – they seed the market and build relationships with early adopters. Yes, the quantum market today might be akin to the “Kitty Hawk” era of aviation (where the Wright brothers could only give short flights for curious onlookers), but those onlookers included visionaries who saw a revolution coming. In the same way, today’s limited quantum offerings are enough to entice strategic customers. Those customers will be the ones to help these startups fly further, turning experimental tech into indispensable tools. Missing this phase, or assuming “there’s no one out there to use our innovation,” can mean missing the chance to co-create the market itself.
Myth 4: “We Can Just License the IP Later – No Need for a Startup Now”
Universities often face a fork in the road with new inventions: license it out or build a startup? A prevalent myth in academic circles is that for something as uncertain as quantum tech, the safer bet is to patent the discovery and wait. The idea is that once the technology matures (perhaps developed further with grant funding), a large company will come along, license the intellectual property (IP), and commercialize it. This myth appeals to caution – it suggests the university can reap rewards through royalties without taking on the risk of a startup. Tech transfer offices, strapped for resources, might favor this route thinking it’s simpler. Researchers might prefer it because it lets them stay in academia. Unfortunately, this “license later” approach is often a mirage in the quantum realm, and leaning on it can leave valuable technology languishing unused.
Reality: While licensing has its place, the odds of an early-stage quantum technology achieving impact solely via licensing to an established company are quite low. In practice, many quantum inventions are too nascent, too complex, or too far from a marketable product for an outside company to invest in them without significant development – development that a startup is usually better positioned to drive. An insightful report from Oxford University’s tech transfer unit noted that although a few quantum technologies had been successfully licensed out, “such examples are currently rare.” Even Oxford, renowned for tech transfer, found that most quantum IP didn’t neatly fit the traditional model of licensing a patent and collecting royalties. Why? Because quantum technologies often comprise a suite of innovations (materials, devices, software, etc.) rather than a single standalone invention. They also involve many “unknown unknowns” in terms of engineering and market integration. Companies typically license things that fill a clear need in an existing product line or can be straightforwardly turned into a product. But with quantum, the path to product can be very non-linear. A big corporation might balk at licensing a quantum patent unless the technology is already proved out to a level far beyond what academic research delivers. Without a champion to push the tech forward (which is usually the role of a focused startup team), those patents risk sitting on a shelf.
Consider the perspective of a potential licensee – say a large tech company. If presented with a university’s quantum invention, they will assess: Has it been demonstrated outside the lab? Is there a prototype? Is there supporting software? Can it integrate with our systems? Who are the key researchers, and will they be available to consult or work with us? Often, early-stage academic inventions will score low on these questions. The corporation might decide it’s easier to develop the idea in-house (or acquire a startup working on it) than license raw IP. This is why we see, time and again, universities forming spin-off companies around quantum IP even when the ultimate goal is to get acquired or partnered by an industry player. The startup acts as the bridge – it gathers the inventors and engineers into a team, raises capital to build prototypes, de-risks the technology through iterative development, and even starts engaging with initial customers. Only then do larger companies step in, either as commercial partners, investors, or acquirers. Skipping the startup phase would forfeit that de-risking and development. It would be akin to expecting a seed to grow into a tree without a gardener – unlikely in the harsh soil of cutting-edge tech.
There are illustrative examples on both sides. On one hand, Quantum Base, a Lancaster University spin-out, is pursuing a “design and license” model for its quantum secure authentication tags. Rather than manufacturing the tags itself, the startup is developing the technology and then licensing it to major security printing companies to incorporate into products. This sounds like the myth’s playbook, but notice: Quantum Base did form a company, raised funding, and built the tech to a stage where industry could implement it. The “later” in “license later” was after the critical early development by the spin-out. On the other hand, consider a hypothetical where a university with a breakthrough quantum sensor simply patents it and waits. Without further development, years could pass with no licensees – especially if a competing startup elsewhere builds a similar sensor and captures the nascent market first. By the time the university realizes a startup is needed, their IP might be leapfrogged or the key researchers may have moved on. In fast-moving fields, patents alone rarely guarantee success; it’s the execution and continuous innovation that create value.
Additionally, the financial outcomes via licensing versus startups often favor the latter for high-impact technologies. University licensing deals (especially early-stage ones) might bring in modest royalties or one-time fees. A spin-out, however, if successful, can yield orders of magnitude more return to the inventors and institution (through equity appreciation or acquisition deals). Take the famous example of Google: it sprang from a licensed university invention (the PageRank algorithm from Stanford), but Stanford wisely took equity in the newly formed company in addition to a license. That equity later became vastly more valuable than any royalty would have been. For quantum tech, a similar logic applies – being part of building a company allows one to capture the full entrepreneurial upside when the technology proves its worth. Moreover, many governments and grant agencies now encourage or even fund the commercialization journey. Programs exist (like the U.S. NSF’s I-Corps or the EU’s EIC Transition funds) to help academics spin out companies and “test the market potential” of their ideas, precisely because a direct license isn’t seen as sufficient. These programs recognize that a hands-on approach with customers is needed to shape the product-market fit.
Another point often overlooked: licensing later doesn’t necessarily reduce risk; it can increase the risk that the innovation never sees the light of day. Universities might spend years maintaining a patent (paying fees, keeping the team minimally engaged) with the hope of a payoff that never comes if no one picks it up. Meanwhile, that team could have been building a prototype and gathering crucial feedback. The myth’s allure is that it feels safe – no messy startup logistics, no risky pitching to VCs, no leaving the comfort zone. But in reality, it can be a road to obscurity for the technology. Quantum tech needs champions, and a startup formed by the inventors is often the most passionate champion available. As a 2016 UK report on quantum commercialization concluded, many quantum inventions are just pieces of a larger puzzle, and attempting to transfer a single piece via license “may not be effective.” Instead, bundling the pieces in a spinout where they can be integrated into a solution is the way to go. Indeed, the report suggested creative approaches like “technology aggregator” companies that assemble various quantum IP under one roof to develop them – an argument again for forming entities (startups or special companies) rather than waiting for external actors to do so.
In summary, “We can license it later” is a risky myth that can cause universities to miss the commercialization boat. The reality is that active development is needed to make quantum research useful, and that usually means a startup driving it forward. By all means, patents and licenses are important – they protect the innovation and can be part of the strategy (for example, a startup might license the tech from the university). But they’re not a substitute for the heavy lift of engineering and market creation. Universities should weigh not just the short-term convenience of licensing, but the long-term impact of their innovation. More often than not, a spin-out with the right support will be the vehicle that transforms a paper in Nature into a product in the real world.
Myth 5: “Our Regular Tech Transfer Process Is Enough – Quantum Doesn’t Need Specialized Support”
Even when universities decide to pursue a spin-off for quantum technology, there’s sometimes an implicit myth that “a startup is a startup”, and standard tech transfer and incubation practices will suffice. In other words, quantum projects can be handled with the same playbook used for, say, a software app or a routine engineering invention. Some may think external specialized help isn’t necessary: “We’ll patent, form a company, maybe get into a generic incubator or accelerator, and off we go.” However, quantum technologies come with unique challenges – scientific, financial, and strategic – that set them apart from typical university spinouts. Ignoring those differences can leave quantum startups under-prepared and unsupported in critical ways.
Reality: Quantum commercialization benefits greatly from specialized support structures – be it mentorship from quantum-experienced entrepreneurs, targeted accelerators, or dedicated government programs. The truth is, quantum ventures operate on different timelines and risk profiles than an average startup. They often require more R&D before product-market fit, they must educate their customer base from scratch, and they grapple with deep scientific uncertainties. Traditional tech transfer offices are learning that they might not have all the expertise in-house to guide these nascent companies through such a complex landscape. As a result, new models are emerging explicitly to bolster quantum spin-outs. By tapping into these, university teams dramatically increase their odds of success.
It’s telling that some of the world’s leading innovation hubs have launched quantum-specific accelerators and incubators in recent years. The University of Chicago’s Duality program, for instance, is the nation’s first accelerator exclusively for quantum startups. Duality was founded precisely because its organizers saw a “critical barrier” in getting quantum innovations from the lab to the market and realized that general startup programs weren’t enough for this challenge. Over the course of a year, Duality’s cohort companies receive not just generic business training, but mentorship from quantum industry experts, access to specialized labs and equipment (like quantum hardware testbeds), and introductions to corporate partners who actually understand quantum tech. Early results are promising – the first cohort of Duality startups collectively secured over $8.5 million in funding and grew their teams significantly within a year. They also forged connections with corporate partners (such as AWS, IBM, and others in the Chicago Quantum Exchange) that led to pilot projects and investments. This kind of ecosystem-building is invaluable for quantum startups. It’s unlikely they would find the same density of relevant contacts and advice in a general incubator full of consumer app startups.
Other examples abound: Canada’s Creative Destruction Lab launched a Quantum stream to pair quantum startups with seasoned mentors in the field; the UK’s National Quantum Technologies Programme set up quantum innovation centers to help with prototyping and industry liaison; and France’s Quantum Initiative includes an accelerator for quantum ventures. The message is clear – specialized support can bridge knowledge gaps. As one Oxford innovation manager noted in the above-mentioned report, quantum scientists “may not be ideally placed to lead commercialization activities” without help, and we need tech transfer managers with quantum savvy to step in.
Why is specialized support so important? For one, quantum startups face a talent challenge. They need people who are fluent in both quantum physics and entrepreneurship – a rare breed. General startup programs might have tons of business mentors, but few (if any) will grok the difference between a trapped-ion and a superconducting qubit, or the significance of a decoherence time. Specialized programs attract mentors who do understand these things – perhaps former quantum startup founders, industry R&D leaders, or investors who focus on deep tech. These mentors can provide targeted guidance: for example, how to pitch a quantum company to investors who might be wary of long timelines, or how to structure a proof-of-concept project with a corporate partner that yields meaningful technical validation. They can also help avoid pitfalls specific to quantum (like overpromising on unproven claims, which can burn credibility in a field that already has hype). Furthermore, specialized support often means access to infrastructure that a typical startup can’t afford on its own. A biotech incubator offers wet labs and biotech equipment; a quantum incubator might offer dilution refrigerators, laser setups, or cleanroom space for chip fabrication. These resources are enormously expensive, and a lone spin-out would struggle to progress without either massive funding or a friendly host lab. Being plugged into a quantum hub means the startup can keep developing the tech efficiently while it also works on the business side.
Specialized support also helps in finding the right market applications – a process that can be non-intuitive for quantum tech. A classic mistake for a deep-tech startup is to be a solution in search of a problem. Quantum is so novel that sometimes even the inventors aren’t sure which real-world problem will be the killer app. Programs like the Jumpstart workshop (run by NSF and the Polsky Center) specifically coach quantum teams in customer discovery, pushing them to talk to industry and “envision how their technology could play out in the real world.” By interviewing dozens of potential users, quantum researchers often stumble upon use-cases they hadn’t considered. For example, a quantum sensing team might discover a need in civil engineering rather than the defense sector they assumed was primary. These insights inform the startup’s direction and make it more attractive to investors. General tech transfer processes might not insist on this rigorous market validation early on, but specialized ones do – precisely because they’ve seen too many technically brilliant projects falter for lack of a market need. As John Thode, an I-Corps instructor for quantum startups, put it, through intensive customer discovery “teams will discover how to translate their quantum technology into applications that someone is willing to pay for.” Armed with that knowledge, they are far better positioned to gain funding and traction.
Finally, specialized commercialization support brings together a community of like-minded peers. Entrepreneurship can be isolating, especially in a niche field. But when a cohort of quantum startups go through a program together, the founders share lessons, contacts, even technical advice. They effectively become each other’s support network. They also collectively signal to the world that something big is happening – helping attract investors who might be on the fence. It creates a sense of momentum in the quantum ecosystem. For instance, when Duality’s first cohort succeeded, it reinforced to government backers and VCs that quantum startups can hit milestones, leading to continued and increased support. Specialized services like Quantum TTO (a hypothetical example of a dedicated quantum tech transfer service) can likewise focus attention on quantum spin-outs and rally resources (legal, financial, marketing) tailored to their needs.
In short, treating a quantum spin-off just like any other startup is like training for a marathon by practicing sprints – you’ll be missing key endurance and strategy. The universities and entrepreneurs who recognize the need for a different approach are investing in it: bringing in external quantum-savvy advisors, joining specialized accelerators, and advocating for quantum-friendly funding mechanisms (like government grants that bridge lab research to startup stage). Those who cling to the “one-size-fits-all” myth risk leaving their teams ill-equipped. The reality is that quantum is a new frontier, and navigating it requires its own map and guides. The good news is these guides are emerging, and the quantum startup community is growing stronger through collective effort.
Embracing Reality: Quantum’s Commercial Journey Has Begun
Dispelling these myths is not about blind optimism or glossing over challenges – it’s about replacing false barriers with informed confidence. Quantum commercialization is hard; there’s no sugar-coating that. But as we’ve seen, “hard” is not “impossible,” and early difficulty does not mean it’s “too early.” The myths we unpacked – that quantum is always 20 years away, that only giants can play, that no market exists, that we can passively wait to license, or that generic support will do – all share a common trait: they underestimate the momentum and ingenuity already at work in the quantum ecosystem.
The reality is that in labs and startups across the world, quantum technologies are taking their first steps into the marketplace. University spin-outs are building actual devices and software, signing on pilot customers, and attracting investment, thereby proving these myths wrong one by one. Each trapped-ion module sold, each quantum-secure communication link deployed, each optimization algorithm tested on a quantum processor is a brick in the road from research to industry. That road is being paved now, not in some distant future. And like any new road, it pays to have a good map. Specialized accelerators, government initiatives, and services such as Quantum TTO – which provides domain-specific commercialization guidance – are part of that map. They help academic innovators avoid dead-ends and speed bumps that can derail progress. As Professor Artur Ekert, a pioneer in quantum cryptography, aptly said: “Exciting quantum research is being conducted by bright minds… It is equally important that a robust roadmap for commercialising the underpinning research is drawn in tandem.”
Such a roadmap is now emerging. It shows that being proactive beats waiting: universities that spin out companies (with eyes open to both myth and reality) are more likely to see their ideas make an impact than those that sit on patents hoping for a license. It shows that collaboration beats isolation: partnerships between startups and big companies, or between researchers and experienced entrepreneurs, amplify what each could do alone. And it shows that support is available: from Duality in Chicago to quantum networks in Europe, the community is rallying to ensure no good quantum innovation fails for lack of business know-how.
For tech transfer offices and innovation managers reading this, the charge is clear. Encourage your quantum researchers to test the commercial waters sooner rather than later. Help them find the right mentors and programs – perhaps an external quantum accelerator or a consultant who’s navigated deep-tech venture creation. Recognize the myths when they surface (even in your own thinking) and counter them with the evidence of realities described here. Yes, not every quantum project will be ready for a startup, and prudent evaluation is necessary. But make that evaluation on real criteria (technical feasibility, market signals, team commitment), not on misconceptions (“nobody will fund this,” “Google will do it first,” “let’s wait 10 years”). As with any high-risk, high-reward endeavor, there will be failures and pivots. Some quantum startups will go under or change direction – that’s part of the process. The point is, the field as a whole moves forward faster when more attempts are made. Each spin-out that launches is a statement that your institution is at the forefront, not watching from behind.
For investors and industry leaders, the takeaway is equally important. Don’t let the mystique of quantum (or its hype) cloud your business judgement. Look at these university spin-offs with a balanced eye: see the tremendous potential they hold, but also appreciate the pragmatic steps they are taking now. Many of these teams are more prepared than one might assume, especially those tapping into the new quantum commercialization infrastructure. By engaging with them early – whether through pilot programs, investments, or mentorship – you stand to gain a seat in the front row of the quantum revolution. Dismissing them because “quantum isn’t ready” could mean missing out on the next IonQ or the next generational platform for security or sensing. Remember that even the largest oak tree was once a sapling. The quantum oak is beginning to grow; watering it now will yield dividends for decades.
In conclusion, the myths around quantum commercialization are giving way to realities grounded in actual progress. The perception of quantum technology is shifting from fanciful to feasible. A narrative is emerging not of unattainable “moonshots,” but of tangible startups solving hard problems step by step – a narrative in which university innovation plays a starring role. By recognizing myths for what they are and embracing the real opportunities and challenges, TTOs and researchers can transform “too early” into early advantage, turn “no market” into new market creation, and swap “wait and see” for lead and succeed.
