Like any tool, it's value is determined by application, not by it's shape, weight or material cost. In the bush, it has little value. The fact thyat there's no current widespread application is no surprise. Reducing the cost to end users isn't going to change this. Current vendors of similar info have their own strategy that thrives on disorganization. So be it.
I expect that the proofread data will percolate eventually into the ethernet. It won't be alone, though, or even identifiable. A 35M spreadsheet doesn't lend itself to simple web viewing. Lots of keystrokes required there.
You don't want to get into a 'mine is bigger than yours' discussion. There are some nuts out there who store everything and anything. They still end up web searching for new projects.....
For example ( and I'm not volunteering as an example of the nutjob variety ) the semiconductor folder on this machine's HD alone has over
2,000 folders in it, never mind the file count. Components? fugedabadit - that's on it's own hard drive.Organization of this stuff is usually as bad as any catalog. I try to fit as much formalized info into the file name as possible, to ease search, retrieval and comparison.
The most useful place for any datasheet is in the project folder where it has been considered for actual use, next to the spreadsheet where features were noted for specific evaluation and multi-source development.
RL