I think you’d easily have a point when it comes to the iPhone, but then I’d argue how utterly stable and vibrant the used iPhone market is and how far Apple has gone toward making it so easy to participate via a (usually) very reasonably priced trade-in. Their recycling program is nothing to sneeze at either; they cover the cost.
But for the Mac, I really can’t see your point. The lineup is extremely stable and relatively boring in terms of release cycles. Compare Apple’s number and length of Mac product releases to any other top PC manufacturer with their utterly obnoxious numbers of head-spinning releases. Right now, we are in a unique period of rapid evolution of ARM development due to Apple bringing its silicon production in-house (and continuing to do so with other components). This is going to only result in more power efficiency over time and better performance, and so I’d argue: product longevity and lineup stability in the long run as people realize that any ARM Mac is more than sufficient. That was rarely the case with Intel, especially after one or two OS releases.
Not playing devil’s advocate here on you at all: iPhone lineup is obnoxiously stratified and needs to be consolidated into one or two varieties of the phone. But much like the guilt surrounding “wasted bath water” that is recycled right back into the system, the used market is especially vibrant and stable for all things Apple, and that includes the Mac. It (perhaps accidentally) goes on to justifies the end (though maybe not the means) of much of what they do.
