...a more interesting article summary would read "a number of issues will keep HDDs from closing the performance gap with flash for some time". I'm not willing to give a vendor money for more space: I already have too much - and new PC's ship with more GB than an average user will ever fill.

But as a consumer I will pay for more speed: especially since switching from HDD to SSD is a material improvement (as opposed to spending the same upgrade money on a CPU that's 15% faster). And businesses definitely see the benefits, especially in common virtualized environments: where IOPs are precious and expensive to obtain with traditional HDD arrays. We could run a lot more VMs on the same RAM and CPU at work, once we slapped a couple SSDs in the drive trays.

I have a fileserver that will be fed replacement HDDs as they die, but that's it. Every other computer I touch gets nothing but SSDs.

The company I work for is involved in the Nuclear Work Management industry: and companies owning a "fleet" of reactors is common terminology. "Legendary Slashdot commenting"? (after carefully avoiding Google :) )

I'm another fan of backups to disks stitched together with ZFS. In the last year I've had two cases where "zfs scrub" started to report and correct errors in files one to two months in advance of a physical hard drive failure (I have it scheduled to run weekly). Eventually the drives faulted and were replaced, but I had plenty of warning, and RAIDZ2 kept everything humming along perfectly while I sourced replacements.

For offsite backups I currently rotate offline HDD's, but I should move to Cloud storage. Give a bit of my surplus space and bandwidth to someone like Symform, and in turn they give me a free little slice of the Cloud to have TrueCrypt archives mirrored into. Win-win!