Moore's Law applies to anything digital, so this situation is certainly likely to persist, at least until technology hits a wall and Moore's Law is repealed. And it's clear to me that there are many ways in which film can only be emulated, not replaced, by digital. On the other hand, the labor costs that surround film processing keep the costs high, mostly due to the added complexity of physical processing and all the other things that go into handling and manipulating film. And I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir in saying that.
I find it somewhat sad that this tends to turn into a debate, and the reasons why are too many to treat fairly, considering how little time I have for this.
It's not all that remarkable that digital is gaining influence, when the innovations people can do with digital are so widely accessible and low in cost, other than the plentiful time needed to explore and experiment. And my sense is that at some level most film projects at this point tend to be a hybrid of film and digital, with each "side" having strengths the other might envy.
For the kinds of things I've tried to do, with little or no hope they would produce revenue, I could not have afforded to attempt them using film alone, unless I were even more foolhardy than I clearly am.
I am left with the general impression, though, that aside from the camera I bought several years ago as a self-teaching tool, any future projects aspiring to commercially-acceptable quality may well involve leased equipment, but as I understand it, that's something that hasn't really changed over time. At least not as much as some of the cheerleaders might have predicted.