First, take a deeeeep breath and relax. On my side, I am going to ignore the first words of your answer...
I am relaxed-- don't be presumptuous. It's just that you're demonstrating why, in my humble opinion, society has been going straight down the drain for years-- In the early 90's, keyboards were loud, heavy, and reliable. Now we have cheap, disposable keyboards that are terrible to type on. Music has gone from "audiophile" quality being the thing, to heavily compressed, lossy digital files that have the bass pumped up to ridiculous levels (see "loudness wars"). Sedans and compacts are more fun to drive, and more fuel efficient, but they "aren't where the money is", so everyone (especially in the USA) drives SUV's.
It is not about reasonability or convenience, there is no money anywhere in film industry for proper research. Not now, not yesterday, but since many years (20 at least). They have enough surviving in the digital era of photography. But we are also very lucky, the products and processes are so mature after a journey of over a century that innovation is not mandatory. We live nowdays with what we got until late 1990's and it is fairly acceptable in perspective of how dramatically was the film photography fall. Could be better but it could be also worse, much worse.
If there's a market, there's money to be made. The problem is, the CEO's who are going to get golden parachutes whether their company lives or dies, and are only rewarded for instant profit. This is why the pharmaceutical market is relatively stagnant-- the next antacid is big money, but nobody cares about new antibiotics-- or antivirals, until a global pandemic hits-- "because there's no money in it".
All new products we see today are normally things from the past reintroduced again, sometimes by new companies (even with old names) trying to find their place in this small market. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not, it is on the contrary a sign of good health of the market that we should encourage. But call it "inniative", not "innovation" or "evolution".
I hope that my point is now more clear.
Well, you had to make up a word to make your point, so it's kind of suspect-- but my attitude is that innovation is the only thing that's going to keep film viable. No one's making shutters any longer, and I think Rodenstock is the only large-format lens manufacturer still around. Medium format lenses have gone the way of medium format (either gone, or insanely expensive), and in the case of this thread, most developing processes (especially for color) are based on large scale-- and that scale simply doesn't exist any longer. The article I referenced mentions that apparently Kodak owns two shuttered plants-- but they're designed for such large volumes that the only way to operate them profitably is to completely tear them down and start over. Tetenal, in theory, has a history of working with thousands of units, rather than millions, and hopefully, will be better positioned to profit in the new order.
Take Kodachrome-- Expensive to make, expensive to develop, and as I understand it, involves a number of highly toxic chemicals. If someone came up with a process for manufacturing a film that looked close enough to Kodachrome, and announced it tomorrow, it would be global headline news. Fuji and Kodak have both reintroduced films that were previously discontinued, and in both cases, that was only possible by improving the existing technology.
Since the 1990's, we have made gains in pretty much every aspect of manufacturing-- saying those improvements shouldn't be applied not just to update existing products, but to reimagine past, or existing products, is just silly.