Just to follow up, here's a list of the problems I know about in getting 3D (or 5D) storage to market.
* Materials. You need something that can be manipulated or deformed at reasonable energy levels into two or more stable states to store data, then maintain that state for a useful lifetime without power. That's already a bit of a Goldilocks act, but it must also be non-reactive, not too brittle, not too expensive, etc.
* Media manufacture. Recording even a single layer at these feature sizes is a non-trivial challenge. As layers increase, yield drops exponentially - even before you consider how the layers interact.
* Read/write mechanisms. Focusing on a single layer on a moving medium, with nothing in the way, is also a challenge. Put other data-bearing layers in the way and it becomes much more difficult. Also, the "blast radius" for a single focus/alignment error becomes much larger, so you're going to need some serious error correction over and above what already exists for 2D.
* Transfer speeds. These are already problematic even at 10TB. 360TB without a corresponding increase in transfer speeds would be a nightmare.
A prototype involving a novel set of materials and/or mechanisms working once under ideal conditions is great. Science advances. Kudos for that. But that's only solving about one fifth of the problems that need to be solved to produce something of actual value in the market. You see a similar thing with battery technology. Everyone knows we need better batteries. There are always several companies claiming to have found the next breakthrough Almost invariably the new wonder material turns out to be a poor fit for real-world scale, economics, or conditions. Obviously we should keep trying, and keep learning, but nobody should get their hopes up too much too early.