I disagree. Directly, yes, the average user doesn't care. But application developers care; peer-to-peer protocols become a lot trickier with IPv4 due to the pervasive deployment of NAT; two machines ostensibly on the Internet can't connect to each other, requiring instead the use of STUN servers, which then requires infrastructure somewhere, or just doing it client-server, or some mix like having "supernodes" (like Skype, prior to MS tearing it out) that route traffic for NAT'd devices.

The ability to actually connect arbitrary devices, I hope, will be something that people will take advantage of. I know for many game servers I set up with siblings, the ability to not need to mess with a router's crappy "port forwarding" would be a welcome change. (Even if I had to mess w/ some local firewall, but that can perhaps be much more tightly integrated or at least, a better UX.)

Because the quicker we adopt it the better.

The shittiest of routers support it so when you get one from a major internet company you should expect that it has support for an internet protocol which has been out for 18 years.

IPv4 addresses have been more expensive than IPv6 subnets on every dedicated uplink I've gotten prices for over the last two years. In fact, an IPv6 /56 is usually free, or cheap enough to be effectively free since the fee is mainly a NRC for the time to set up the route, if you ask for it and the provider supports IPv6. In contrast, IPv4 addresses often incur a MRC based on the number of usable addresses you request.

> If I recall correctly, I have to pay _extra_ for an IPv6 address.

That's weird, here we get a /48 v6 block by default and one /32 v4 address. You'll never need more v6 addresses, but each v4 address comes at a monthly fee.