Pioneer or not, it is a private business and must turn a profit to remain viable.
It must also generate returns (dividends) that interests investors enough that they are willing to invest their money in the company.
As a publicly listed company, they must meet their obligations to report their financial status, so that the shareholders can make an informed decision regarding their continued investment in the company.
While OCZs SSDs are leading performance drives, they also come at a premium to other brands, and it's up to consumers to decide whether the established brand name stands for quality/reliability and justifies the premium, or whether they are budget constrained and opt for a less established/lost performance unit.
Truthfully, the performance of ssds is now relatively consolidated and performance differences are relatively trivial between top brands and budget brands, and reliability/endurance is a factor which cannot be determined reliably at the time of purchase for current product.
Warranty support is not a substitute for a good product, something that OCZ may very well have found during the vertex 2 debacle. I've had 2x vertex 2 ssds replaced out of 2 original drives, and one of those drives was replaced twice - basically OCZ have provided me 5x ssds for the price of 2, and paid for international shipping(out of their own pocket) three times.