It seems David DiVincenzo was a featured speaker at the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting this year. Good for him. The EE Times writer heard the talk, and did his best to relate DiVincenzo's particular take on where quantum computing is at.

There isn't a lot that's new here. In fact, I don't see anything. DiVincenzo's lists his criteria every time he talks, and they are noncontroversial. On the other hand, his advocacy of a particular scheme for implementation, using electron spins in quantum dots defined by gates patterned on top of a 2-dimensional electron gas, would be recognized by anyone in the field as a bit biased, since that is the particular team effort he is most closely associated with. I don't think it would be fair for him to claim that he has applied his criteria and eliminated all other candidate systems, and I doubt he actually said that. If he did, I don't agree with it, and it would obviously represent an idiosyncratic view.