My opinion is that this is silly. It replaces an action performed by humans? Uh, okay, sure. Consider what you're doing when you tighten one of those cables (aided, of course, by the indexing detents built into your shifter that ensure you move the cable just the right amount). You are transmitting positional data to your derailer. The difference with electronic shifting is that this information is transmitted in the form of bits rather than cable tension.

As for the batteries running out, it's no different than breaking a cable on conventional cable-pulled systems (hey, remember how that CAN happen??). Actually, it's better, since the system gives you plenty of warning, which you can use to put it in a gear that you can ride the rest of the way, unlike a broken cable which typically happens with no warning and dumps you into the highest cog on your cassette or the small ring on your crank.

Saying that you like bicycle technology but not THIS technology doesn't make me think you have a point, it makes me think that you're an irrational hypocrite (no offense or anything). There was a big deal made about the adoption of gear-shifting mechanisms; in spite of that being a far bigger deal than changing the means used to shift gears, cycling got through it. Similarly, some raised a stink about indexed shifting, arguably also a bigger deal, certainly at least equal. Again, no one's making that argument now. But riding around on a ten or eleven-speed bike with indexed shifting controlled from integrated brake/shifters and then complaining about how electronic shifting will undermine the integrity of the sport strikes me as a complete failure of self-awareness.