Though I am generally against planned obsolescence, there are also some arguments -for- planned obsolescence:

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin...

In some situations you want planned obsolescence, such as in parts which are critical yet should not be used beyond a certain time period (a filter in a medical device) and it is standard practice to design them to stop working in a controlled way before they become dangerous so that they will be replaced on a timely basis. I've also heard that one reason the Soviet Union failed is they relied heavily on standardized components. This meant that everything was easily replaceable, if your washing machine motor failed you could replace it with the same electric motor taken from an old car. But this also meant Soviet engineers had trouble designing new products since new products with new parts could not compete with those made from low cost and massively manufactured standardized parts. If you needed an inbetween motor size you were stuck with just the standard motor sizes. A higher performing motor that used less energy and lasted longer would have to compete on price with standardized massively produced motors. To some extent this limited the development of new technologies and products. The article linked above mentions that customers also drive product design; if people will always buy whatever is cheaper and pay no attention to product longevity then it is difficult for a manufacturer to compete with a long lasting product; the benefit is not immediately apparent to the purchaser and claims about longer life are hard to prove for the seller (many sellers lie). A lot depends on the specific type of product and peoples perceptions. Many people are willing to spend more on tools that last because they have seen poorly made tools wear out or had it demonstrated how much better a properly made tool works. They are not willing to pay more for long lasting LED light bulbs because the experience with incandescent bulbs is they always wear out so they are used to having to replace them and they are not going to track the individual lifetimes of each bulb type/maker, though that is starting to change as people notice LED bulbs not having the claimed lifetime (hence this discussion).

So some things need to have a limited lifetime, some things are more efficient in terms of manufacturing cost versus lifetime when designed with a limited lifetime, sometimes a limited lifetime leaves room for invention and improvement, and sometimes a longer lifetime uses less resources and is more efficient and makes life easier. Longevity and standardization can work both ways, for and against the minimization of resource use. Capitalism has flaws, and many of them are tied to profit motive, but it does improve some efficiencies and encourage invention. A lot of it is up to people who decide how much they are willing to pay for things. Not everyone can pay the price for longevity, a cheap screwdriver can be used to fix things right now while an expensive screwdriver may mean not also having the use of a cheap hammer right now. Do you live with the house falling apart or buy the cheap tools? Cheap cellphones meant everyone could have one, and replacing them every few years meant the design of cellphones could advance quickly. Once cellphones reached a plateau in design (remember when each new model had more sensors and cheap models had fewer sensors?) the focus should have shifted to longevity.

However, after saying all that, and considering the climate crisis, society and corporations need to be leaning more towards making things last than they are currently. Making things more easily recyclable, making parts reusable, making products last longer. It has to be approached on a product by product basis though, and affect designs where it makes sense. Bring back bumpers on cars that actually prevent damage to the body:

https://ccmarketplace.azureedge.net/cc-temp/listing/108/7778...