Good points. But I'm going to come to bubbles defense a bit.
I Love the induction grow lights I've been using and would really encourage people to get a bit more knowledgeable, as you have, as to the overall benefits relative to yields per watt. To that end the inductions have simply kicked the shit out of any other light source I've tried for the wattage consumed. And unlike bubbles I'm not a salesman for mland, indgro, or any other brands that might be manufacturing an 'induction grow light'.
Like pretty much every grower I know, we get our information from forums, magazines, tradeshows and our hydro stores where every claim is based on science that very few of us fully grasp (nor do I really want to) much less get to form an opinion based on our own scientific research unless we actually buy the 'latest and greatest' being marketed. So if we do nothing different (the safest) we'll continue to buy new HID lamps every 6 months, pay the utility bills and believe that the costs are a necessary burden of the yield reward.
With the rising cost of power I have tried to lower my operating costs and have invested in a few of the 'latest' HID lamps and LED panels that make persuasive claims as to their efficiencies. Induction was another attempt to determine for myself if the savings in energy consumption could warrant the investment and the yields and product would not suffer as a result of this lamp. I did not expect much.
I will say this though, I went into this purchase armed with more knowledge about how the light should be tailored to maximize Net Photosynthesis relative to the plants we are growing indoors. This action spectra will vary between species and specifically there are in fact variables in the action spectra between types but species as well. What I mean by that is that even though you can still produce side by side same types but with different strains they react differently to the chlorophyll A & B absorption that the light itself produces.
http://www.inda-gro.com/led-vs-induction.html really describes the relationship between individual plant receptors to net action spectra better then I could have described.
So while I'm sure a lot of mfg's spend small fortunes and research time attempting to define the precise spectrums for the species it's actually more for marketing then for yields. Case in point that most mfg simply refer to the Chlorophyll Absorption Charts when promoting their spectral levels and not action spectra because it varies to widely amongst species/types to make an absolute claim that their light will outperform the competitions in Net Photosynthetic Action for any specific plants 100% maximum yield. It's not really in any lighting mfg best long term commercial interest to make such an absolute claim so Net Action is not usually referred to.
So if you've stuck with me on this, my point is that a generally productive trichome light source will have some unique spectral characteristics. But for a mfg to state that it's the best light made for an entire type category would be unbelievable to an informed buyer and definitely not worthy of serious purchase consideration.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
