All the problems with having these things today are implementation problems not fundamental issues.
Or, your objections would have been valid against the railroad and the telegraph as well (both of those reduced friction tremendously).
I get the gist of what you're saying, but I don't agree that artificially limiting technological innovation, or improvements in efficiencies is beneficial at all.
The objection I have is more with the psychology rather than the physicality of it. It makes things more disposable. You lost a sneaker, we get it replaced in minutes. It's allowing people to gorge on consumerism. It also puts the local shops at a disadvantage. But, mostly, it removes the barrier to thinking about buying more. You don't have to think about waiting till tomorrow, or two days from now, or having to walk twenty minutes, or get out and take transit, or jump into a car to go satiate the impulse. No, all you need is your desire (and buying power) and it's fulfilled.
By the time it was delivered, I had already found my long-lost extension cable and didn't need it anymore.
Waste of money and—to your point—if I didn't have that option I probably would have searched a little more around the house before resorting to buying a new one.
Ultimately I still want to see these things advance, though. Whatever mechanism that would set lower bounds on delivery times would be worse than the problem it would be intended to prevent.
[1] Never mind why the TV only outputs audio on a 3.5mm jack, kinda cheap.
I have a fear we're on the way to creating a whole class of people who are totally dependent on the system for everything. There will always be people who are well rounded and know the relationships between things (i.e. know where the sausage comes from)