Li-ion battery arrangements inside those devices seem to hold about 80% of their usable capacity and voltage for about six months, with average usage patterns. A year after that this drops to 50% of original capacity, or below. This is known, if a bit too generalized.
Yet those are not easily swapped out. And your CPU throttles, your WiFi throttles down with the battery, reducing usability. There is no "please change out the battery" alert for the user at any point.
The marketing for these devices makes no mention like "you've got about a year of usage for this device before it becomes slow".
In any of this there aren't any external factors to anticipate, unlike with the Javascript landscape example above. As a manufacturer you know your device usage patterns, you do collect some telemetry and some repairs data. You can make a projection.
My point is, those are being sold in full knowledge of the facts of their limited lifetime. With no mitigation strategies, with no concessions for user-serviceable battery replacement or how to buy those batteries. There is no battery shelf at the Apple store.
It isn't discussed much. There is no customer blowback to this product strategy. It could be, in bad faith argued that people are fine with buying something to replace it a year later.
My question is, to you, are you arguing this in good faith? Do you really think this is fine to have something called a "product" where it is actually a service, with a limited term and no end-user serviceability?
Is it OK to call something a "question" where I am asking you to ask yourself, and don't care to hear what the answer is, because I have already arrived at an opinion long time ago and see no reason to change it hence?
Please don't be offended by this, it isn't intended to rile you in any way.
I am only after some clarity, as I perceive your language to be confusing terms mightily and so making things seem more complicated than they end up being.