I can't disagree. However, it feels like Star Trek keeps getting pooed on because executives make too big of risks on it. Wrath of Khan was an $11 million movie and made just under $100 million. Star Trek 4 cost $25M and made $133M. Crappy Star Trek 5 cost $28M and made $70M.
The new series
$190/$229M (Star Trek 4 made more $, especially considering inflation and % margins)
I think what's worth considering is that back then the conditions were a lot more amenable to a Star Trek movie being hugely successful the way Wrath of Khan did. For starters, Star Trek was still a hot property due to the success of the first movie and the continuing popularity of TOS (and later TNG). There also wasn't really a lot of serious competition in the general space that Star Trek filled apart from Star Wars, especially with the fizzling out of the original BSG after the failure of Galactica 1980.
Now, things are different; a new Star Trek movie not only has to compete against Star Wars, but the additional juggernauts of the MCU and the DCEU. SF/F on TV has also risen in popularity and quality, and speaking of which, there arguably hasn't been a break-out TV success for Star Trek since the glory days of TNG and DS9. ENT and VOY have their merits and defenders to be sure (and ENT remains a guilty pleasure of mine) but they neither brought in the viewing numbers nor had the pop culture clout as TNG or TOS. On top of all of that is the competition posed by video games for audience attention and numbers, especially big brands like Halo and Destiny.
Furthermore there's the problem that Hollywood has, much like the AAA industry: they're not making an almost $200 million movie just to make $230 million. Hell, Batman v Superman made over $870 million worldwide on a budget of $250 million, and it was considered an earnings failure for not making over $1 billion. If they make another Star Trek movie, you can be sure that the suits are going to want to see Avengers-level numbers, and they'll do whatever they think it takes to make sure it gets there.
What does this mean for the future? Well, Simon Pegg gave -- from what I've observed -- the kind of Trek film that the fans wanted versus the 2008 reboot or Into Darkenss (this is all from what I've seen). For the next movie, I'm going to be a cynic and say that it wouldn't surprise me if they put in more cheesy cornball action and T&A just to get more people in the seats.
On TV, I'm not optimistic either. Sure, I'd love to see LGTBQ characters in Star Trek, but from what I've heard it looks like it's going to be more of a hackneyed shoehorned character introduced to tick a box on a list of features, than a well-realized character like Soren from "The Outcast".
Oh well. At least I still have my VHS taped broadcast of "In The Pale Moonlight"...