I want to be there. I'm told they run hot, so incur much the same cooling issues HDD do. I am told if you don't recharge them periodically, they are not reliable offline storage disconnected from power for various reasons.
And of course, there's price.
it's already possible to get a 2.5 ssd with 8tb for $350
m.2 sata is available at similar prices too, but many fewer choices. mSata seems to have topped out at 1TB
Some of the data center grade SSD's have rated data retention of 3 months at 40°C if unpowered.
Having to keep the archival media powered to retain the data does not sound too attractive.
For what I could find, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1 TB) consumes 40 mW when idle. This means that a 100 TB array would have to spend about 40W on idling, or 350.4 kWh a year.
Even at $0.50 / kWh, it would cost $175, a trivial price to pay for having your data instantly available.
The price per TB is not great though, about $50, while an 45TB LTO9 cartridge is about $110, or $2.44 pet TB.
So it's not the price of the power.
45TB is the 'compressed' capacity, the actual capacity is 18TB for LTO9, for $6.11/TB - still an order of magnitude cheaper than SSD, mind you!
SSD’s also have a much lower carbon footprint than HDD’s. The electricity it takes to keep the hard disk platters spinning dwarfs the footprint of the NAND, including manufacturing.
I don’t think global NAND manufacturing is anywhere near the same storage capacity as disk or tape, yet, but I wonder when those curves are set to cross.