(To get on a soapbox for a second, however) Regarding new technology and the impression it doesn't have trade-off's: it does.

If fact, the BB30 might be a prime example. Invented according to lore by Cannondale, it is now used on many other bikes and been observed on many high end, high dollar frames -- Cervelo, the aforementioned Cannondale, etc.

Since these bearings are "press fit" they have to be removed with a mallet. WTF? Really? On a ,000 bike?
Second, being press fit, the bearing tension is adjustable only by the bb shell width of the frame itself. In other words, a slight tolerance issue in frame sizing and the bb will be either lose or tight, no way to adjust it (although one might sand or file down the edge of the frame?)
Similarly a BB30's advantage, according to one Cannondale spiel, was it's stiffness. However, A press fit bottom bracket with improved stiffness is just that. What'd that Ancient Greek guy say? Give me a lever and a place to stand... and I'll move the world? The crank is the lever and the BB is literally, where it stands. Is anchored. Here's the problem; Imagine a massive strong lever. It is more effective at transmitting energy. Good, right? Yeh. But it doesn't help if at some point a long the way all the energy is wasted. Say, you have this awesome lever -- but are standing on a soft yielding surface. Or something slippery. Maybe you're wearing roller skates. Okay, the lever won't flex a micron -- but you will lose energy because you, who are holding the lever, slip.
A press fit bottom bracket is like that. The newer, stiffer bb may be more efficient at transmitting energy, with less flex, and the lighter bb may mean that less of that energy is wasted on moving a heavy bike part down the road, or in a circle... but if the attachment point is a source of wasted energy, all that stiffer newer bb means is more squeaky bottom brackets where the press fit parts hits the frame's bottom bracket shell. Squeaking, for those who don't know, is the sound of movement. That movement means the loss of energy.
Indeed, you have a new stiffer spindle and stiffer bottom bracket -- that's press fit into a frame with a new stiffer bottom bracket shell and frame area.

See the problem? The bb to bb shell/frame interface is press fit -- the weakest link in the chain running from your feet, through that newer stiffer bb, to the rear wheel.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but all that stiffer bb will do is creak more. And with only a press fit attachment point it's not like there are threads that can be greased. in short you have to remember the bike is the sum of it's parts, at least in one respect. The bb is only as strong as its attachment to the frame. Now if you are okay with a k bike - or any bike - that squeaks, so be it, but I wouldn't be.

Make no mistake, the BB30 has advantages, but let's just not forget that like everything else it has a trade-off too. Cyclists -- like anyone else -- engage in such trade-offs all the time. For instance, A carbon frame is light, but not very great at surviving impacts unscathed. So you make a call -- which is more important, short term performance vs. long term durability? For racers this is a no-brainer. For the rest of us, it is a real question, because most of us "real world" riders have to buy our own equipment and don't get new stuff every year. Also our bikes have slightly less specialized roles than racer's bikes. For the regular rider, his bike isn't just a piece sporting equipment, it's also a vehicle, a way to get to the store, etc. And while granted, a person is probably not going to commute on a pure race machine, they could. This is where one of the other great misfortunes of modern cycling technology comes into play, the horrible lack of tire clearance on many bikes. Sure racers aren't running 25s or 28s, but then racers don't have to ride after work in the dark or early Saturday mornings over post-winter roads. Have you seen the potholes out there?
True there is a place for specialized racing machines -- see the classic racing aesthetics of a lugged steel frame, chrome, and Campy N. Record! But... even though you want to be able to ride as a racer, you shoot yourself in the foot if you totally lose all ability to use the bike for anything else except keeping up with the guy in front of you. The fact that if you are really an avid cyclist, you probably have a less "racy" bike to commute on, doesn't change this observation.

As to the trade offs; they aren't new. Old Vitus frames were light, but reportedly flexed a great deal. Aero or v-section rims are more aerodynamic, allegedly -- but heavier rotational weight (more material. To try and minimize this trade-off they use carbon for many of the high-end aero rims; it's light but more delicate; another trade off. An aero rims also need special long valve stems.

Not all trade-offs are worthwhile -- or commercially viable. The Lampert and Viscounts both claimed to use airplane related materials and technologies -- and became obsolete curiosities, mainly due to the fear that their fork blades would come off. Not all new technology is successful. It is ironic, then, to note that the Lampert had a press-fit bottom bracket, like the BB30. And while Viscounts and Lamperts are in my humble opinion really awesome vintage bikes, as well as sort of iconic historical things, you wouldn't probably want to put 5,000 miles a year on one. At least I wouldn't. So while the modern cyclist, who "knows better," may smile knowingly at the somewhat quaint images of the decades old Lampert ads touting "aerospace technology!", are we any more sophisticated when we run out and buy a BB30 -- just because it's "newer and stiffer and lighter"?

The modern press fit bb, the BB30 included, has the same practical trade-off as any other technology. For example, a BB30 *is* lighter and stiffer, or *should* be if made properly; a press-fit design needs less material in terms of thickness than a design with threads in it, as the threads consume part of the initial thickness. This is true on both the frame and removable bottom bracket. And a wider spindle is stiffer. The downsides are a squeaky bb-bb shell/frame junction, and no real adjustability to bearing tension.

 Oh, and having to whack your expensive lightweight fragile frame to get it out using a mallet.

BB30's may actually feel nice while riding.  They definately have potential weight savings.  But... gee, how much is that Cervelo worth?  Three grand?  And you're gonna hit it with a hammer?

Of course with modern cartridge or self-contained bearings adjustability is less of an issue anyway, and has been less of an issue, for years, since before outboard bearings, back when we all used square taper bb's and nothing else. Once bb's went to cartridge or self-contained bearings, that was a big change, bigger perhaps than bearing size or location. Because the purpose of the bearings changed. Now they were more replaceable parts than an integral component of the bottom bracket itself. You didn't adjust the bearings as they loosen; you threw em away and replaced 'em. It is a different attitude.

 Without it we'd never have seen BB30's.

Maybe it's the attitude of the future. We'll see. )

Personally I think they should bring back 3-piece bottom brackets, with the bearing cups and square taper separate spindle.  These were lighter than sealer bearing ones, though probably not as lighrt as BB 30's and the ilk -- although they contain adjustibility the lighter more modern design doesn't -- and none of it's flaws.  They sure don't creak.

Dust off that thirty year old catologue.  What used to be old might be the next New Thing!

  Hey it worked for press fit bottom brackets (or, more to the point, it didn't, and doesn't).