I worked in the DR industry for years, and supperted DR syystems as a consultant for hundreds of different clients for a decade. I've done thousands of restores on dozens of tape technologies.
yes, newer tape systems are more resilient. however, the tape itself is not. magnetic metal media exposed to the open air in a cartridge can not possible be as stable as a hermetically sealed drive system in a disk.
tape mis-alignment due to sagging spindles (where the tape in the spool slides against itself due to vibration, and creates a conical shape inside of the drive instead of a flat real, later when read, or even just retention ed, can cause the tape to rub against the inside of the cartridge and heat, causing data loss.
A tape itself, without heads, may technically be capable of surviving more Gs of force in a drop (though the plastic corners, not to much), but a disk drive can easily survive a drop from the server to the floor if you're not careful and drop it. In a caddy in a shipping case, we've thrown them from 5th story windows to concrete, repeatedly, and had no issues. We've even frozen a drive in a block of ice and read from it (still frozen!). In a fire safe, a HDDs control board will melt away, but the spindles inside the drive chassis will be fine beyond 250 degrees and the disk can be rebuilt and read fine, but a tape will simply melt, even inside a fire safe (which are only designed to keep internal temperatures below the combustion point of paper, a "media safe" is a whole different thing, and VERY expensive).
HDDs are fast, have parity across disk sets, don;t require expensive robotics and drive heads, and run on common (not arcane, ancient SCSI protocols like MTX), and have better longevity. Disks can alsdo be reused hundreds of times, a tape 10-20 if you;re lucky.
Many of my clients use disk for the rotational and daily backups, as well as the local and remote archive live copies (so restores are from in-house disk, and only archives are offsite, saving time). Long term archives are often to tape still as it CAN be cheaper, but I'd only trust it in weather controlled facilities.
The last firm i worked for shipped over 15,000 hard drives to be used for D2D backup. Drives do fail occasionally, and they're warranty replaced on a regular basis, but never in the 3.5 year history of working for them had a single backup not been recoverable, aside 1 we suspected was due to a backup not having been truly complete when the disk was removed (user did not run the command to spin down the SATA slot, they just pulled the drive).
Boards, controllers, that has nothing to do with data loss from archives, that would only cause the active JOB to fail. Fix the issue and run it again. When a tape drive fails, it costs thousands to replace (if you can get a compatible model). When an array controller fails, they're $500...
I was a skeptic for D2D when i heard about it in 2001. After working for a firm for years that worked with it, I've never looked back. My current employer has a massive IBM infrastructure, almost all tape, more than 20,000 tapes in storage. no way is that going away, there's legal hold data we simple have to keep, and thousands of terrabytes in archive we could not afford to migrate to disk (nor do we have time). However, we're addding D2D capacity to TSM constantly, and in a year if we're lucky, won't be using tape at all anymore. They think that will save us about 500K a year, and provide for near instant restores of files (current recovery of a single file can take 12-36 hours depending on where it comes from) That migration started before i got here, and I've kept silent on my opinion siting conflict of interest (I'm in a position to make purchase decisions, and my former employer is a bidder, so I abstain from comment entirely).