It can be profitable to invest in declining technology. Mazda almost by definition thinks it's profitable to still invest in ICEs. They can also invest in other drivetrains at the same time. The company can raise more money (assuming they can persuade investors).
And I would not have purchased one, because no matter how great it was, the practical limitations of EVs make them a non-starter for me.
I would be much more interested in a highly efficient ICE (assuming it is reliable, affordable, etc.)
If you claim that Mazda could not sell well made electric car then:
* Tesla has 500 thousand pre-orders for Tesla 3
* Mazda sold 290 thousand cars in US + Mexico in 2017 (https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/december-2017...)
I can guarantee you that as soon as batteries are affordable enough these companies are going to switch to EVs instantly.
Mazda could have been selling a kick-ass electric model of Mazda in 2019.
And if they did it right, maybe they too would have 500k of pre-orders and the "problem" of not being able to build the cars fast enough.
The question is: why are they investing in technology that is in inevitable decline vs. investing in the technology that will inevitably win?
Now, I know why.
A guy in charge of diesel engine development is at least a VP at Mazda. He doesn't want to fire his engineers. He doesn't want to fire himself.
He has power and he will use every bit of it to downplay and delay inevitable.
That's understandable from human psychology point of view but it's bad business.
Innovator's dilemma is real and many companies failed to make the obvious investments in the future technology on time. See Kodak or BlackBerry.
And when they finally did, it was too late.
5 years ago we could have an argument about diesel vs. electric. Today the future winner is clear.