Yes, either of those products would be a waste for me. Usually, I don't own a ball long enough to put 100 or 250 or 500 games on it to cause reaction loss. If I happened to own a ball that I REALLY liked and did keep it for that long (as in my first khameleon) or purchase a used ball to try out, I own a rejuvenator which can help restore some of the ball reaction. So for me it doesn't make too much sense.
For others, the cost of the product (roughly $30), is much cheaper than buying a brand-new high end bowling ball in a proshop. Granted, most people don't routinely pay high-end prices ($220 though $260), but still it is a cost-effective method. This is especially true if you own a ball that you really like and want to restore performance. With that being said, I personally would still prefer a "heat" method over an absorbent method. To me, it seems logical that a heat method would as well, if not better, than the absorbent... so I would probably try the hot water/bucket method first...
S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Joe Theismann's MNF idiot quote of the week:
"David Garrard's 50 percent completion percentage means that if he throws six deep balls, three will be caught."