noglider 

If you know anything about engineering, you know that every problem has constraints, i.e. compromises. Weight and cost are big factors in bicycle design. It's possible to build bikes that don't need frequent repair, but they would be so heavy that few people would want to ride them. Notice how often you get a flat, have to replace a tire, or do any other kind of repair. It wouldn't be tolerated in the car industry. But making bikes appealing to ride is important, and since the human motor is a lot less powerful than the car motor, we have to make the bike light and pleasant to ride.

I don't buy bikes. I've worked as a bike mechanic, so I know how to build and fix bikes, so I build my bikes. I've often thought about using an internally geared hub (IGH). 3-speeds are nice and simple and super reliable, but the gears are too far apart for me. Whenever I ride a 3-speed, I end up using only two gears, and even they are too far apart. Plus they are heavy and expensive. The IGHs with more gears are less reliable and much more expensive, and they're even heavier.

Chains are annoying for sure, but they are energy efficient and cheap. Belt drives for bikes are around now, but the frame has to be specialized (to allow installation and removal), and the belts are expensive. The drivetrain also must be specialized and therefore expensive, and changing your ratio is somewhere between expensive and impossible. Maybe the situation wouldn't be so bad if belts had been invented sooner so chains were not so entrenched, but material science wasn't ready. Maybe belts will become more common in time.

Shaft drives are heavy and expensive.

Weight matters! Cost matters! Everything brings compromise. You can have your ideal bike, even today, but are you willing to pay for it? It is entirely unrealistic to ascribe evil intentions to a whole industry. They are doing the best they can under difficult constraints.