I think it's because technologists are easier to manage.

Product engineers, on the other hand, are actually quite ambiguous to evaluate. Many methodologies have been introduced, starting from Barry Boehm, but over time they gradually stop fitting, and there are many points that are hard to assess. It's essentially a matter of organizational management theory. The ideal of organizational management theory is that diversity comes together to create synergy, but conversely, such diversity means that decision-making within the organization slows down.

Technologists, by contrast, are very easy to observe in terms of speed or code quality. In fact, most people choose a career of learning technology and making money rather than founding a startup, and from that perspective, since "career" tends to be emphasized as an employee's career rather than a founder's career, isn't that why technologists are emphasized?

What companies value as a capability is ultimately an evaluation that can be measured. And product engineering, when you think about it, presupposes discussions with decision makers.

'Is it necessary to implement this feature?'

'Do customers actually need this feature?'

'Isn't the business model wrong?'

Most decision makers are people high up in the hierarchy, and friction with them is unavoidable. In other words, it crosses existing role boundaries, which means more frequent conflicts in organizational dynamics.

Whether that is ultimately a gain or a loss for the organization is something nobody can konw