You still don't have the software/chip company thing aligned properly to the TV series thing.
Lots of things are similar but not exactly the same. They don't have to be exactly the same to see my point.
The argument for entertainment price is that the cost model is totally, completely, absolutely different than everything
My analogies are to show that there are many similarities, not that they are exactly the same. The root of it is whether entertainment is similar enough to say that it doesn't deserve the different business model that it has.
Yes, a new episode is more like a new version but not quite. I don't know many designs that are updated every week, plus there is no reuse other than the characters and the theme song. The rest is a brand new product every week.
There is not a new product every week. You consume it every week for a few weeks at a time. When doing an analysis of whether I should keep sat I looked up the cost of buying premium series and found the following:
Dexter (SHO) 12 episodes/season
Homeland (SHO) 12 episodes/season
Borgias (SHO) 9 episodes/season
True Blood (HBO) 12 episodes/season
Game of Thrones (HBO) 10 episodes/season
Strick Back (MAX) 10 episodes/season
So many expensive series are 10-12 episodes a year. A maintenance release is similar to a single episode. A major release is similar to 4 or more episodes. 4 maintenance & 1 major a year is similar to 8 episodes. You can play with the numbers all you like but there are many software products that cost more per year to produce than TV series.
You devalue TV series when you say little reuse. It's not just the characters, theme song, production, etc. The very basis of the story line is a huge value. Each episode is an evolution of the story line. The story line is the high risk initial investment. Yep, similar to software (or hardware).
But, why do you continue to compare a startup company to a new TV series? It is more akin to an existing company starting a new product.
It doesn't matter. Some of entertainment is like that. A good deal is not like that. It isn't the network that starts a new entertainment product, it's a production company. The network may or may not have an initial investment but they rarely own the whole thing. These production companies invest in the initial development and then they have to sell distribution rights. The same production company may sell one thing to one network and different thing to another (even one network selling to another: 60 Minutes Sports on SHO). It's not unusual for production companies to pop into existence and then vanish later. Mostly it's just pseudo-independent people that form companies for the purpose of a single production. Even when the production company goes on and on the bulk of a series are contract writers, actors, crew, etc.
Failure rates are far lower in that case for software/chip design than they are for new TV shows. Far lower. Any company in design that fails as many times a pilots are rejected would be out of business. Don't try to sell us otherwise.
You see failure as black and white. It's not. Many software/chip are extremely weak from a business perspective. They may not get killed completely but they also don't make enough money to support a company. Lots of companies can't innovate so as long as products make some profit they remain. One step above a failure. Lots of TV series are like this as well; they stay on the air but the viewership is barely enough. Both have an ROI and it's poor.
You just argued that TV is about existing companies starting new products. If so then they rarely have everything riding on a single product. They too create new products all the time. They may have products that aren't hits but do make enough money to stick around. When a product doesn't pan out... the people just get moved to a new product or their contracts are terminated.