I'd say that's arguable. How long did Apple intend the machine to last? If it is estimated that 95% of units that will be produced will be obsolete and scrapped within 5 years, is it being a cheap ass to spec capacitors that will last "only" 10 years of normal use? No computer was ever designed to be a classic collectible, it was designed to be a functional tool with a finite lifespan.
Look at some of the boards used in satellites, missiles and other cost-is-no-object military hardware where absolute reliability is paramount. It looks almost nothing like consumer gear, nothing but the highest quality PCBs, gold plated pins, ceramic IC packages, usually no electrolytic capacitors anywhere. A computer built that way would last a very long time, but it might cost $100K while one designed to last 5-10 years might cost $5K. Engineering is a world of trade-offs. Price, reliability/longevity, performance, you can pick any two favorable traits. Stuff isn't designed deliberately to fail, it's designed to be good enough, while being as cheap to produce as possible.
Look at some of the boards used in satellites, missiles and other cost-is-no-object military hardware where absolute reliability is paramount. It looks almost nothing like consumer gear, nothing but the highest quality PCBs, gold plated pins, ceramic IC packages, usually no electrolytic capacitors anywhere. A computer built that way would last a very long time, but it might cost $100K while one designed to last 5-10 years might cost $5K. Engineering is a world of trade-offs. Price, reliability/longevity, performance, you can pick any two favorable traits. Stuff isn't designed deliberately to fail, it's designed to be good enough, while being as cheap to produce as possible.