In order to get the full spectrum of light you had to dope crystals with other compounds, this makes them unstable. The new process has promise to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture.
I am in no way an environmentalist, but I have great respect for our scientist working on technology to help the environment. I don't like using tax dollars to fund individuals buying this stuff, but I do like it when they use their own money.
It is the rich who drive technological development and make it available cheaply for the rest of us. When the refrigerator was invented it was very expensive and only a few could afford them, but that drove the technology further and made it eventually available to everyone.
I believe some government funding is appropriate in the scientific development of such programs, not for individual purchase mind you, just for development. I don't think the progress we made so far in solar cells ( a Nasa development) would have come this far without government sponsorship, there simply was not a need. Space agencies that originally developed it could get along quite well with what they had (other than weight considerations), and the U.S. energy needs have got along quite well with other (although somewhat more polluting) technologies.
I think that once the technology becomes both efficient and cheap it will win out. Nobody will want to use a polluting energy source when a cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner source is available.
Success with already existing technology requires some amount of political will. The only technical problem with these solar systems is that they must be coordinated with back-up systems which use traditional means of heating water, especially in colder climates.