Capitalism requires consumption. That is not a value judgment, but an observation. Unfortunately, the pace of consumption leads to waste - and this is made worse when vendors deliberately cultivate a culture of obsolescence and constant upgrades.
Smartphones are over twenty years old, and have undergone huge shifts in design and capability during that period. I have a question, though - what does your smartphone today do that your smartphone a decade ago could not? For most people I've talked to, the answer is "it has a better camera" and little more, and the pinnacle of cameras a decade ago (PureView family devices) are still competitive in many ways with smartphone cameras today. Despite this, a relentless obsolescence/upgrade cycle aligns with two-year carrier subsidies to generate conditions for planned obsolescence - increasingly backed with technical means. There are a few aspects to unpack here.
The end result is that any smartphone more than five years old is rapidly approaching the end of its usable life - and for reasons that are essentially artificial. Why have we collectively decided this is normal?
The laptop situation is not as grim, but has been worsening as well. Thin-and-light laptops using ULV CPUs, in particular, have never been maintainable; hardware failures are often fatal to the device. This trend has been expanding upward. Vendors have generally justified this in the past as being the cost of a thin-and-light device - but the success of the Framework laptop says otherwise. Laptops have become sealed systems because it is easy and cheap to build them that way, and because a relatively fixed and predictable service lifetime guarantees the vendor a constant stream of upgrade revenue. Specifically, every laptop with soldered onboard storage will have a limited lifetime, after which it is not practical for most users to attempt to repair the machine and keep it in use.
A computer, unless it has suffered a hardware failure, can do the same tasks it can when it rolled off the production line. The question, then, is whether the things we do with our computers - phones, laptops, desktops, and servers - have really changed so much that any machine older than five years is obsolete and any older than ten is a museum piece. Constant replacement of computers carries economic costs and a very real human cost - massive-scale resource extraction, labor exploitation, dumping of toxic electronics waste on developing countries - and it's disturbing to me that the industry's response is "meh, totally worth it."