If Apple had to make headphones that were either robust or repairable (or both, can you imagine), they'd find a way, if only to avoid losing money on replacing broken ones.
Of course, there is obviously a trade off.
TL;DR: Nice strawman ya got there. Would be a shame if it burned down.
Apple is not a company that "makes disposable earphones". AirPods are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of its business. The vast majority of its products can easily last a decade or more and are recyclable after that.
Saying that Apple is worth trillions because of a side product like AirPods is ludicrous. Make your argument without this sloppy, inaccurate Apple-blaming.
Ohh come on... Apple requires them to be shredded, after which some of the base metals can be recovered but there is still a ton of waste in that.
> products can easily last a decade
As long as you are fine with them reducing your battery life to get you to upgrade.
Apple, and the carriers have lots of incentive programs design to get people to "upgrade" the phones and when using those programs those phones go strait to recycle (i.e shredder)
Recycle is the LAST RESORT for sustainability, remember the triad is "REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE" Apple only even plays lip service to the Recycle part, and want to prevent the Reduce and Reuse part by preventing / disincentivizing repair and resell.
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY22_Q1_Consolidated_Fin...
Obviously not, but that's how economies of scale, combined with planned obsolescence and rent seeking works.
That's how Apple who makes disposable earphones that last two years is worth trillions and Sennheiser who makes headphones lasting 20+ years is going bust.
It's not profitable making fair priced products that last forever or are cheap and easy to repair.