I'm confused what you're even arguing against.

The article specifically uses the phrasing "uses off-the-shelf parts that cost around $25". It doesn't say anything about the cost to develop, it doesn't say anything even slightly misleading or ambiguous about this.

Like, what should the article have done instead? How could it possibly be clearer and more explicit about what $25 referred to here?

It may cost $25 to deploy the hack after it has been developed. It's mere $25k to deploy 1000 instances of it, or even cheaper due to the economies of scale.

I have quit the software industry and now get paid what people _should_ get paid for software which is a small fraction of what I was being paid before. By choosing to work on actual real problems, instead of partaking in the pseudo-intellectual clout chasing contest that is the tech industry, I have discovered the real value of software which was never much to begin with as I assumed it was when I was a kid.

tl;dr yep, he could have been shoveling CRUD shit and making more money, or implementing high end algorithms within broken operating systems, or implementing high end algorithms with insufficient education or time to prove them, while getting dumber

scratch that he got a bug bounty for his work so his net gain is equal. check mate