White-listing hardware to the point of bricking a device when non-listed hardware is present is plain user-hostile and seves no purpose but revenue generation f

White-listing hardware to the point of bricking a device when non-listed hardware is present is plain user-hostile and seves no purpose but revenue generation for the device manufacturer. I don't buy the "but it's for your security" argument at all. An attacker who wants to own a machine with a malicious device might as well just spoof the identity of the malicious device. I also don't buy the "but we need to minimise the support burden and warranty repairs" argument. If third party devices are such a problem, then tell the user that they are going to void the warranty but allow them to continue to use the device. The only purpose this policy serves is to force users to purchase the most expensive add-on device possible or, worse, to force the user to upgrade an otherwise perfectly well working machine. This gives you all the drawbacks of un-expandable hardware with none of the benefits of soldered-on components (size, weight)