The main thing not so many people take into account is, the incandescent emit majority of the "heat" as a rather short wavelength IR (very close the visible range), which passes through the glass ciovr the same way as the visible does, so only fraction of that power actually stays within the fixture.
Compare to that, the fluorescents, as well as LEDs, emit most of their waste heat as convection heat and long wave IR, which both remain trapped inside.
So although there is e.g. a 100W incandescent, in a fully enclosed glass globe just about 20..25W of heat trapped inside of the fixture.
The same fixture with a 70lm/W 25W CFL (to get similar ~1800lm output), all the losses, so about 20W is dissipated within the globe. Nearly the same as with the 100W incandescent, so leading to similar internal temperature. And that higher temperature is way easier to handle by the incandescent, than the CFL ballast. And also the performance of the tube itself is quite temperature sensitive, it must be specifically designed for the temperatures it is supposed to work at. So it may be possible to design a tube for enclosed fixture operation, such lamp will be very inefficient at lower temperatures (in open fixtures; and also take forever to warm up to ramp up the light output). Because it is easier to work with lower temperatures of open fixtures and many fixtures are indeed open, it is the condition these lamps are designed for.
With ~150lm/W LEDs you need about 12W power input, which means about 7W dissipated as heat. It is way less than the CFL (or incandescent), but the plug-in LEDs have extremely tight thermal budget (because there is minimum chance to get rid of the heat, even when there is less of it), so most hsuch higher power LEDs use to be "just on the edge" with an open fixture operation. So very likely will operate beyond its design target, so suffer from worse reliability (every 10degC higher temperature means about halving its lifetime).