People are mentioning survivorship bias. (i.e. we notice old products that work well because they're still working, and don't notice the ones that failed since

People are mentioning survivorship bias. (i.e. we notice old products that work well because they're still working, and don't notice the ones that failed since they're in a landfill.) I wonder, could the opposite reason account for all the companies selling crappy products? Could it be that all the companies that made the really high-quality products that last generations died out because they didn't have a sustainable business model? It could be that creating a truly high-value product is expensive and selling one that never needs replacement isn't sustainable. Maybe after a while you run out of customers: the ones that are still happily using the product you specialized in making an expensive high-quality version of for life, just don't have a reason to buy another. Thus perhaps the only companies that survive are the ones who have customers who keep rebuying after their products break. How can customers help e.g. a refrigerator company survive, if they only buy one from them ever?