No, there's not only one way. Also, IBM did not invent/discover the layout in question (I think?). The article does tone it down later on, at least: > IBM's de

No, there's not only one way. Also, IBM did not invent/discover the layout in question (I think?). The article does tone it down later on, at least: > IBM's design shows the best potential to scale by adding more qubits to arrive at a working quantum system The surface code [0] is a good bet in the which-layout-will-work-first race. Mostly because the existing manufacturing capabilities are limited to working on a surface (as opposed to in 3d), and because the surface code has a good threshold error rate (~1%). John Martinis talked about the surface code in a google tech talk [1]. 0: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0928.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0928.pdf 1: https://youtu.be/HQmFEt6l6Tw?t=21m24s https://youtu.be/HQmFEt6l6Tw?t=21m24s