Bricking insecure devices has a nice upshot - the cost of a returned device isn't just the profit - because all of the handling and
coping has to be done (so far) by a human, the actual _cost_ to the distributor or manufacturer of a failed device is often the
loss of profit on the whole minimum order quantity to the distributor - the whole crate.
That's why if you get a DOA item from Amazon, they often don't even want it back, they send you another on your word of
honor- not because they're so nice, but because (absent evidence of fraud) IT'S CHEAPER TO JUST SEND ANOTHER
RATHER THAN RECEIVING THE ORIGINAL DOA UNIT BACK AND DISPOSING OF IT UNTESTED. It's not free, just cheaper.
But just because it's cheaper, doesn't make it nonzero. Every bricked device replaced under warranty costs $$ and every
device that fails, in warranty or out, costs reputation. How much would you pay for an iPhone if the battery stopped
holding charge after between three days and six months of use?
Bottom line: it's damn expensive to adequately secure an already-damn-expensive IoT light bulb. And as BrickerBot
expands (and no doubt improves, just as the original chemotherapy drugs were improved) the cost to make a secure
IoT device is going to skyrocket.
Which may effectively doom IoT for consumers. Industrial IoT is a different game with different rules and the most
important is that airgapping is feasible.