Neither the article nor the headline say soft brick. Besides, "soft brick" is just someone not wanting to admit that brick has an understood definition but they like the word brick and want to use it.
Does brick have an understood definition though? I think this is the millionth time I see this exact discussion about a news story using the term differently from the one true definition. That doesn't seem very understood to me.
It's so rare these days I really don't understand why people fuss over the definition.
It's almost impossible to brick anything with software, and even in hardware unless you damage the PCB itself you can usually recover if you tried hard enough (e.g. Even if you fry a $1500 FPGA you could technically reflow a new one and pray the bitstream is OK if you need it fixed now - although I'd rather you than me)
Technically you could also lay out new components and copper trace on an actual brick, too.
I've always understood it to mean 'broken beyond software or high-level firmware repair'. i.e. if not actually a blown component, something needs to be reflashed which has an inaccessible JTAG header or something, rather than something 'higher level' like recovery images over ADB & USB.
2 : to render (an electronic device, such as a smartphone) nonfunctional (as by accidental damage, malicious hacking, or software changes)
// … those who dared hack the phone to add features … risked having it "bricked"—completely and permanently disabled—on the next automatic update …
'brick' in general is a sliding scale based on how many device debug/recovery tools you have access to and how much device disassembly you're willing to tolerate.
No, iOS devices can also soft-brick, it's just a general term. Most often people encounter the term in relation to hacking/rooting hardware, like a Nintendo DS/Switch for instance. Hitting up Wikipedia or Trends can help you dig through its usage considering how Google's search algo heavily biases current events wrt relevance.
