When I worked for a company making precision screen-printing machines, the millers had made themselves their own versions of that ROFMILL device, using three pieces of BMS bar screwed together, in place of that casting. Holding the device horizontally (as in the lower photo) in a bench-vice, and the work in one hand, they could tap several holes in mild-steel or aluminium-alloy piece-parts at quite smart rates.
At home I generally use the bench-drill to start the tap, rotating it by hand.
Paul raises an interesting question – "general trend to [replace] 'traditional' methods [with] more modern" alternatives.
Surely what counts is not whether something is called "traditional" but whether it is the better choice for the situation, user, cost, time, etc.? Really, the conjunction of the words "traditional" and "modern" are relevant only in a history-book, but unfortunately often conflated in the same way as "progress" and "improvement" or "up-date / up-grade". They are not synonyms.
Obviously no-one would seriously consider replacing the electric motor on a modern lathe with Grandad's old foot-motor (except perhaps to save also buying a running-machine!) but what of the lathe itself? In its basic form, it is the most "traditional" of machine-tools and all the details are developments made over very many years.
Similarly, many model-engineers now choose to buy laser-cut plate-parts, or at least mill them to profile; rather than chain-drilling and filing them – but as easier and more accurate methods, rather than modernity alone.
So yes, a tapping-head would be the ideal alternative to a tapping & staking tool for many applications, but by no means all; and it is not unreasonable to have both it and other tools available for greater flexibility, given the range of tasks we perform.
The choices we make in our workshops should be based on technical and practical reasoning, not simply artificial conceptions of old and new, or someone's idea of "traditional".
I first encountered that word as a sneer in a strange "New" Maths side-syllabus, at school in the 1960s. Though it did introduce old concepts starting to find real-world applications, like Binary Arithmetic, in later years I realised the maths it derided as "traditional" was the maths actually used professionally by scientists and engineers. Similarly with workshop tools and techniques: describing them as "traditional" or "modern" does not really help.
By all means let it be modern and better, but they mean different things and it is the latter adjective that is important.