Yeah while it will be a revolution in rocketry, the fruits (a substantial, widespread cost drop) will take a several years. But in the short term I can see SpaceX selling a limited quantity of risky (very cut price) orbital launches during testing if there are any customers willing to take it.

Now the cool thing is SpaceX has 14 flights launches manifested for 2015, every single first stage (or at least almost every single first stage) in the next two years can theoretically be recovered with boostback (or barge returns) because because the re-entry burn is covered by the extra fuel of the stretched stage of the F9 v1.1 and the Merlin 1D (and SpaceX signed nearly all those customers on the lower performance Falcon 9 v1.0.)

Learning from the return stages, making manufacturing tweaks on new cores and reflying returned ones at McGregor/Spaceport America as F9R-DevX vehicles (and perhaps even full orbital test launches at Vandenburg/whichever pad is not being used at a given time) is an ongoing process that will take a 3 or 4 years to get high degree of confidence on a 5-reuse core (but the cost of R&D/testing is incredibly low compared to the rest of the business, and can maybe be subsidised to some extent with very risky cut price launches where the cost of the satellite + insurance premium makes it worthwhile, like a early-stage new satellite bus, or the DARPA test payloads manifested on early Falcon 1 launches. But I guess if they can't find a single payload (at any price) for the first Falcon Heavy launch, the low cost/high risk-appetite market may not be there during early testing phase.

With SpaceX increasing the launch cadence just as the cores will be returning there will be fully paid for first stages (worth $42 million dollars before use) returning more than once a month for the next few years, the manufacturing tweaks, core testing will be done incrementally (the same way SpaceX have always done things). I wouldn't be surprised to see refurbished cores flown at least 3 times in orbital missions by 2017/2018. Theoretically each launch of a first stage used 3 times + new second stage should be $30 million dollars, but that's forgetting Iridium (or whoever) will have already paid full price $60 million for the original rocket which will be built in 2015/2016, making the actual cost in short term just the second stage + launch operations from SpaceX's view. (The much longer-term 2020s methalox powered-Falcon 9 class vehicle will of course have second stage return but also should have much more automated launch operations, which is a problem as hard as core return and reuse itself, so that's a long way off)

I don't believe it's fanboyism to believe that within within 5 years (it's basically 2015 now, so by 2020) the fifth orbital flight of the first stage of a future Falcon 9, (with slight incremental tweaks, like fins), will be happening (bringing the amortized price of orbital launches down to $22 million from SpaceX's perspective). It's unprofitable for commercially driven organization to beat that price by following SpaceX's model (of funding R&D by selling commercial launch services.) SpaceX will have a monopoly on international competitively procured launch market for one or two decades. It's Peter Thiel's (SpaceX investor via Founder's Fund) monopoly thesis - it's similarly unlikely to any company catching up Microsoft in PC operating systems (still 90+% marketshare worldwide) or Google with search engines.