If a person doesn’t have money and therefore buys a used phone and doesn’t spend on services, forcing them to buy a new phone won’t make them magically have money for services.
Do you think it's possible Apple believes that reselling devices will result in lower recycling rates? Is it possible that reselling devices that can't be refurbished to their standards could be a safety or liability issue?
Why are you making judgements about what benefit of the doubt a company deserves based on an assumption on top of an assumption?
Apple has relatively high repurchase rates, crossing market segments.
> Why are you making judgements
Their focus on preventing third-party repairs to their devices, preferring to sell expensive repairs or force customers to purchase new devices.
Secondarily, their focus on dollar extraction. Upselling chargers or cables; using their app-store to collect a 30% tax on all transactions, even to the point of attempting to blackmail wordpress for a revenue share. (The fact they walked it back after negative publicity doesn't change that they tried.)
If one were charitable, perhaps they couldn't be refurbed to Apple's standard. I don't believe they deserve the benefit of doubt there.