I've had this thought many times. Durable products are great but some become obsolete before they break, and a new purchase is made not because the old one isn't working, but because the new product is better (more efficient, more ergonomic, more functionality, more capacity, or whatever).

I guess all other things being equal, I'd still rather have something fully functional replaced because there's something new and preferable, than having to replace something that just breaks. But if the cost of the "lifetime" good is a lot more money due to its quality, than the replacement costs of the less durable good that you'd replace anyway due to improved function, it becomes harder to say. Even harder given uncertainty about all of the variables involved.

Incidentally what you're describing is precisely where the term of planned obsolescence [1] actually comes from!

In the early 20th century GM wanted to sell cars but the problem is that the market was already saturated with cars that were well functioning and built to last. And so they needed to develop a way to convince people to buy another thing that does effectively the same as some other thing they already own. And so instead of working on creating better cars, they worked on marketing, persuading people that round edges were better than square were better than round were better than square. Hey, look at this new color!

I quite like the quote referenced in Wiki, describing this all as "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History