Reminder that I don’t like the company’s stance on the matter.

What you have posted is your interpretation of the definition, which has little legal or practical value. A product does not need a successor, superior or otherwise, to become obsolete. Nothing you have posted has any relation to the definition of obsolete, and are mostly word play.

That being said, right to repair needs to become a real thing and companies should be supplying repair manuals for items they consider obsolete.

I certainly don’t agree with the company’s position, but did you read definition 1b? I think you may have stopped reading a little early