I think I'm on the same page as everyone else as far as price, though I don't think we have to see absolute parity between the two styles--perhaps a 10% premium against the middle of the pricing band would be acceptable to most.
But what I'm waiting for is a SSD that actually can replace my NAS's drives. In that instance, I'm looking for price and longevity mostly. Speed isn't particularly important as the dozen drives can saturate a gigabit link without working terribly hard. So why hasn't a manufacturer come out with a medium format (3.5" rather than 2.5" or 5.25) SSD that can be stuffed chock to the gills with chips from the previous generation--where the fab is paid for and failure rates are low, so easy to make reliable profits on--and designed NAS drives? Start showing me 2-4Tb units in a larger case with good endurance within 10% of the price of something like a WD Red, and I suspect there's a vast amount of money to be made.
Nevermind that that same drive could be jammed into a normal desktop by an OEM for significantly cheaper than a 'fast' SSD of the more current designs, and allow the OEM to put a big sticker boasting about it having "not just an SSD but a bigger one than the competition" on the box, and I suspect they'd be onto a winner.
But then I'm the cheapskate that's still using a dozen used rusty 2Tb drives in my NAS because that was the sweet spot for cost:space, and let ZFS pick up the reliability (which honestly, has been excellent). Makes you wonder just how fat the profit margins are, and how much that's pushing for bragging rights in the speed arena. That said, I just also put a fancy M.2 into my main gaming rig, and the speed is really noticable, but the pricing makes it dumb for storing ...uh... cat videos.