My first eMail was in the 1980s prior to DNS. name1986@IPv4
The point is, the actors and actresses feel the need to make way too much and anyone in economics would tell you they are trying to optimize their profit. The problem with that is it inherently creates people who are not willing to pay the market rate for the content and since it is "free" to copy it - they do.
This is one area I feel the entertainment industry just doesn't get it. The general attitude often seems to be "I cost us X to make this thing, therefore it is worth X".
Unfortunately, that's not how any other markets work. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. This goes for virtually anything that is bought and sold -- toys, comic books, computers, cars, stocks, collector coins, individual pieces of art, gold -- the price is based completely off what people are willing to pay for an item, and has little or nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. This is actually a good thing -- items with a high perceived value can command higher prices and reap more profits, while at the same time there is a push to find ways to lower prices to enhance the perceived value vs. price ratio.
I view media piracy along these lines. It's part of the markets way of telling the media companies that the perceived value of what they produce is lower for many people than what they charge.
Now admittedly in the last few years better pricing models with (legal) streaming services like Netflix have helped to improve the situation for many consumers. TV in particular seems to have done a really good job of coming up with ways of putting content online for free (TV shows are highly advertising supported anyway). But other parts of the industry seem to be fixated upon fixed pricing, especially for new media, that is above the value much of the population would put on it. People willing pay for things when they perceive the value as being more than the price; but when you price things above that perceived value line, you just drive piracy. It doesn't matter how much something cost to make -- if you want to charge more than the market is willing to pay, people simply aren't going to pay.
It still begs the question. Why? It's a waste of money and resources that could be focused on actually contributing to society. "Because we can" is not a good justification.
Anything but a full blown holodeck isn't going to appeal to the masses.
Besides, you talk about 2 years for a Pixel... I talk about over 4 years supported. So, liar? More like realistic vision on longevity of devices.
cheaper premium smartphones
It's not a premium smartphone, if you don't get updates... So, let me fix that for you: cheaper smartphones. That's it, explains it all...
Even Google and Samsung suck at keeping updates going for longer than six months, which is why the user who expects longevity and supports shells out for Apple. Sad to say, but I expect my smartphones to last four years. Two, new as my wifes phone on a subsidized contract (with flat everything), and then two more years as a hand-me-down for me with a much cheaper plan.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS