planned obsolesce
You are mistaken. It's not planned obsolescence (top down thinking), rather it's cost/benefit - how much time and resources does one have to invest and what are the future expected cash flows. Companies must operate at at least break even or they're quickly out of business, this means enough profit to cover costs. Even cost-no-object components have to be profitable remain in business.
Companies commonly choose the price point within a market in which to compete, then a cost ceiling to target a specific profit margin. Under this cost ceiling, compromises must be made in choosing materials, the construction methods, R&D both initial and ongoing during the life cycle of the product, etc to target creating/manufacturing the best product they can make to compete within a specific market cost segment. Motivation is increased profitability and/or increased satisfaction in expressing knowledge/creativity/ingenuity/engineering, all accomplished through increased sales.
Increasing quality/longevity sounds like a good thing, but with it comes costs and maybe more importantly alternatives.
The benefit of MAY result in goodwill enough to create FUTURE repeat sales enough to offset the time, effort, and resources one spends now VS using the time, effort, and resources investing in R&D, infrastructure, etc. Most companies choose the later as the most creative and profitable path which is the same path as remaining competitive in the market.
If people will pay for the increased cost of longevity, manufacturers will create it.
True, manufacturers choose what and when to release new technologies often to maximize income streams, but that's not the same as creating a product then purposely build in timed obsolescence in hope of repeat sales.
It's simply supply and demand, and the seeking for higher profits and/or increased recognition for their creativity. Cost/benefit.