I'm not sure I see the problem. If this is entirely accurate, it simply means that there'll be a fork in SSDs: one path will take the "huge storage but not really fast, excellent for long term storage or time insensitive processes such as music and video playback" while the other path will take the "not quite as large but blazingly fast, suitable for OS installation, HD video recording, and other speed benefiting applications". It could also simply lead to better raid, lowering costs, superior controllers.
I mean, it's not like 4 (or 16) TB is in any way small. 4TB is enough for an hour of 277 megapixal raw video. By comparison, 1080p is 2MP, an hour of raw video would consume just 30GB. This isn't a "640K should be enough" kind of situation where the hardware literally can't handle more either. If our needs do change and suddenly 4TB of high speed hard drive isn't enough, we just link two of them together. Three, four, five, and keep going as needed.
So yeah, I'm pretty firmly in the "not a big deal" camp on this. Besides, if estimates hold true, we won't hit these limits for a decade, and for all we know solid state could be passe by then.
