Yes, but Applein the 2000's was notorious to kill products that still make profits for the sake of keeping the product line clean and lean, and not have consumer confused over which product to choose.

Ok, but look at something like the iPod. That strategy makes sense as it is a relatively low cost product. Cost was part of the reason Mac's never got high market penetration. The iPhone is very expensive, especially compared with the competition. Offering old models at a lower cost allows people with less money to buy into the ecosystem. This is important when you have a product like the Watch that requires an iPhone first.

You forgot the iphone SE, it's much worse for the Apple watch and Macbooks.

True. I think that's an important device. A lot of people, including myself, don't like or need a huge screen.

But there are 3 types of Apple Watch and 3 types of MacBooks.

Three types of Macbooks because of the size requirements but why three different types of watch?

I'm in the camp of believing Apple's product line-up is too big. It's having a huge negative impact on their software quality too.

The watch types are really clearly differentiated though:

Sport: cheaper model, a little better for athletic activity (screen is more impact-resistant but less scratch resistant)

regular: main model, styled more like a classic watch, screen is more scratch resistant but less impact resistant

Edition: made of gold, super-expensive

The Edition watch specifically isn't going to be confused with the other two models, and the Sport/regular split seems pretty straightforward to me.

There's really only one type of Apple Watch with hundreds of different external configurations. The hardware is identical in all of them.

Not sure if you're considering this or not but there are two sizes of watch so at least screen size is different. Which is pretty much inline with the differences between MacBook Pros and iPhones where screen size is the main delimiter.