No, big differences at play here. Nintendo won’t plan obsolescence, they will give you a base version at launch (multiple, if they can, since they’re handheld devices and a single family may conceivably want a couple) and then they will iterate on the form factor with a cheaper, slimmer alternative and a bigger, premium alternative. None of those will stop working or break at any point, though. They don’t care about them being replaced. In fact, they prefer if they aren’t, given they make a cut of the software, too.

They are planned to stack on each other. Sell you multiples for multiple users. Apple can’t do that trick, because everybody already owns a phone and the software is backwards compatible and interoperable, so they need to push you to replacement hardware. Nintendo’s on a different business.

The remote bricking is not planned obsolescence, it’s Nintendo’s draconian opinion that they own every part of the hardware and the software fundamentally, so emulation, user modding and jailbreaking are crimes against humanity. They are wrong, but they will continue to enforce it aggressively even beyond what is legally established. This is because it goes fundamentally counter to their hardware design, which relies on cheap-but-robust devices you can give to kids that are built with imaginatively repurposed older tech. They see enthusiasts improving on their price-optimal design as a threat and will send ninjas to stab you if you disagree.

I disagree, but there are degrees of separation here. Nintendo still needs to be forced to provide replacement parts, specs and so forth, though.