Quantum computing is often described as a future technology, something we are all preparing for but not yet touching. But within the quantum ecosystem today, a quiet divide is already forming, one that will shape careers, companies, and innovation over the next decade.
It is the divide between builders and users.
This distinction became clear during the Impact Quantum conversation with Mahmoud Sabooni, the lead quantum processor engineer at Open Quantum Design. At around the midpoint of the discussion, Sabooni offered a deceptively simple comparison: the difference between building a telescope and using one.
That framing matters more than it might seem.
Two paths inside the same revolution
Most people entering quantum assume there is a single “right” way in: get a PhD, learn the math, wait until the hardware matures, then apply quantum to real problems. But quantum is not developing along a single track. It is being built, literally, by people assembling machines atom by atom, laser by laser, subsystem by subsystem.
At the same time, a second group is preparing to use those machines, designing algorithms, simulations, applications, and workflows that may never interact directly with the hardware.
Both roles are essential. But they require radically different skills, mindsets, and timelines.
What it means to be a quantum builder
Builders live at the uncomfortable edge of physics and engineering. They work with trapped ions, photons, superconducting circuits, vacuum chambers, RF electronics, cryogenics, optics, and mechanical stability. Their daily work involves solving problems that lack standard solutions.
In the episode, Sabooni describes systems in which individual ions are positioned just a few micrometers apart—closer than the width of a human hair—while being manipulated by precisely controlled lasers. A tiny vibration, thermal fluctuation, or phase drift can undo weeks of work.
Builders are not chasing abstraction. They are chasing stability.
They think in terms of:
- How to keep a quantum system running longer than a few hours
- How to modularize components so they can be repaired or replaced
- How to scale from dozens of qubits to hundreds or thousands
- How to move from fragile lab setups to systems that behave more like infrastructure
This work is slow, iterative, and deeply interdisciplinary. Builders typically come from backgrounds in atomic and molecular physics, optical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and experimental research. Many come from academia and must unlearn habits optimized for papers rather than delivery.
As Sabooni notes, industry forces a shift: systems do not have to be perfect—they have to work, repeatedly, for a specific purpose.
What it means to be a quantum user
Users, by contrast, are not concerned with how the telescope is built. They care about what they can see.
Quantum users focus on:
- Algorithms and error mitigation
- Hybrid quantum–classical workflows
- Simulation, optimization, chemistry, materials, finance, or logistics
- Benchmarking performance across platforms
- Software layers that translate problems into executable quantum instructions
Their skills lean toward theoretical physics, computer science, mathematics, data science, and domain expertise. A quantum user might never see a laser or vacuum chamber, just as most software developers never touch silicon fabrication.
This does not diminish their importance. As quantum hardware improves, users will determine whether quantum systems generate real-world value or remain scientific curiosities.
Why this distinction matters now
The builder–user divide is not a future concern. It is already shaping the quantum workforce.
Many students and professionals feel stuck because they believe they must become builders to “belong” in quantum. That is not true. Others wait on the sidelines, assuming meaningful work can only begin once fault-tolerant quantum computers exist. That is also not true.
Open hardware initiatives, like those discussed by Sabooni, complicate this divide in productive ways. By making quantum systems more transparent and accessible, they enable users to experiment earlier and allow builders to collaborate across institutions and borders.
At the same time, they reveal a hard truth: quantum will not advance through abstraction alone. Someone has to build the machines.
Choosing your lane does not limit your future
Importantly, identifying as a builder or a user is not a permanent label. Many of the most effective leaders in quantum understand both worlds well enough to translate between them.
But clarity helps.
If you love precision, hardware, systems, and long debugging cycles, you may be a builder. If you love models, algorithms, and problem formulation, you may be a user. Neither path is more prestigious. They simply solve different problems.
Quantum computing will not succeed because everyone learns the same thing. It will succeed because different people specialize and collaborate.
The real question is not whether quantum will arrive.
It is whether you are preparing to build it or waiting to use it.
