The article you cite doesn't seem to really agree with you:

> So why the global obsession with the one species that makes honey? For one, honey bees have hives, which makes them easy to keep and transfer en masse. For another, some native bees are picky about which flowers they prefer and where they live. As a result, commercial pollination is almost wholly dependant on honey bees.

> ...The goal of all this work is not to replace honey bees, but to pinpoint which native bees are effective, what they can offer and how to lure them into visiting and pollinating.

From what the article describes, the honey bee is uniquely suited for the niche we need it for, and there is no other species even remotely as well adapted -- though they're trying to figure out if any other species could be made to work in some lesser capacity.

So it doesn't seem that native species are underappreciated -- just that there are very good reasons we use the honeybee instead.

I know where I live most native pollinators are very selective and, as a result, in very small numbers since their habitat doesn’t resemble what it did even 100 years ago. They’re a drop in the bucket compared to what we require... And even if we made enormous efforts to boost their populations, I think they’d largely only pollinate fruit trees.

Not disagreeing with you just curious why they would largely only pollinate fruit trees?

Good question. I should have specified that I was saying that in the context of conventional crops. From what I've read, they don't pollinate many conventional crops but they are drawn to fruit trees. Otherwise mostly native plants which humans don't cultivate for food.

In some places I know similar species are actually grown for commercial pollination, so it'll vary from place to place for sure.