Toxic chemicals were used during production of the components, probably leaving waste to be dealt with, toxic gases vented, etc. The components of the computer were made using minerals possibly sourced from conflict-ridden, corrupt places like Congo. Some of the minerals involved may become significantly more scarce in the foreseeable future.
If you're going to incur these (ethically, if not strictly economically) non-trivial externalities of manufacturing an electronic device, the ethical thing to do, it seems to me, is to at least make an effort to use the device as it was intended for a reasonable service life, rather than destroying it in a cheap stunt in a way that renders it unlikely to be recycled in any meaningful way and impossible to cannibalize for working parts.
This is especially so if your company pretends its motto is "Don't be evil".
As for the marketing value for the blender firm: They could always fake it. Put a "No Cr-48 Laptops Were Harmed During Production Of This Advertisement" disclaimer up at the end.
Sure, that would probably reduce interest in later ads, but frankly the whole thing is just played out now. "Wanker posts video of a gadget being destroyed as cheap stunt to draw pageviews. Yawn." They'd probably get some PR for the switch to faking it, then they could bow out of the whole tired thing.