It's inefficient. You should get a good if its marginal cost is below its value to you. If Photoshop is worth 550 to you, the marginal cost of a copy is neglible and Adobe charges 600 €, you don't buy it and the market just threw away 550 €.
That is partially justified in that the business somehow has to finance the actual development and other fixed costs, and we don't have a much better mechanism for that yet. But preventing someone from using software because they can't afford someone's profits is just pure waste.
Do they not deserve to keep using software they have already paid for, at great expense to them? Are they not worth “appeasing” because they’re not ~fortunate~ lucky enough in life, as you were?
Adobe has taken away this option. All power to them, but if you paid for a license, you have a right to keep using that software. Apple is the one here breaking software people have paid for.
No, Apple is releasing brand-new software (MacOS Catalina) for free. If you can't, or don't want to run it, then don't.
It honestly sounds like you think you are entitled to it for some reason.
Everyone is happy that Debian Unstable offers brand-new software in a rolling release, but their up-to-date LTS offering is also highly sought after.
I get that Windows (for example) backward compatibility is even longer. That's great but involves trade-offs I don't think operating systems should be expected to make.