I find planned obsolescence to be fascinating. First-order, it seems obviously terrible, both of the companies that (deliberately) practice it and for their hapless customers.
But second-order (and beyond), particularly from the perspective of the companies, I'm less sure what's best, or if there even is a global, objective 'best'.
Consider the most radically distant point you can imagine in 'self-supporting human group' configuration space, that's still capable of making something like a MacBook. What does it look like? How is funded/financed/supported? Is it temporary, i.e. more like a one-time project like making a movie or a video game? Or is it, somehow, a 'going concern'?
The 'going concern' attribute is one that I think is perhaps under-appreciated. One thing that companies, and other long-lived organizations, do well is in organizing people with specific expertise long-term. Think about making a computer, or a washer, or any physical product. Surely the people that make those things, that have done so for an extended period, have a huge amount of detailed knowledge, and wisdom, pertaining to making the specific things they make. What would be lost by them NOT having made the same things for so long? What would our computers, or washers, or pencils, be like if they were all produced by something more like a Kickstarter project?
Imagine another possible world where the 2013 MacBooks were just as good as in our world, but also intended to last indefinitely, perhaps more easily repairable, or made of more common or standard components somehow. Say they lasted 30 years, easily, before needing to be replaced. How is Apple different in this other world? How do they retain engineers like they do now? How do Apple's competitors do this? And, maybe most importantly, how much do MacBooks cost in this other world?