I do recognize that coffee makers are different than iPhones.
Yes. A coffee maker is a tool, something built to fill one specific need via a technique that hasn't changed in decades. It may make fiscal sense to buy a nicer thing and support it forever.
Apple makes portable devices designed to serve many needs, with capabilities that are expected to grow each device generation and responsibilities that are distinct to individual users. These devices tend to be long lived for their category, meaning there's a useful window for repairs, but there's still a limit to the functional lifespan (depending on the user this is between 3 and 5 years).
Some consider this planned obsolescence. It is certainly a decision to trade off long term usefulness for short term usefulness and ignore backwards compatibility when there's value in doing so.
I used to build my own machines and from 1990 through 2003 I had the "same" PC. I would replace components 3 or 4 times a year so the effect was a completely new computer every few years, sort of like the Ship of Theseus. One of the reasons I stopped doing this was the number of coupled upgrades got to be so frequent that I began to see more value in integrated systems.
These upgrades were required to get maximum performance because higher specs in one component begged higher specs in another -- faster ram to feed a faster processor, new bus architecture to accept faster peripherals, etc. This just doesn't happen with coffee makers.
If you look to the past two decades, most of the times Apple has made a choice that reduced modularity/repairability, the market has responded by making the resulting product a massive hit. Any of us can claim that what we want is something we can fix or upgrade ourselves, but experience tells us that following that impulse isn't going to result in comparable sales to focusing on smaller, better integrated products.