I've led a number of platform teams over the past decade and we've always treated it like a product with internal and external customers.

You're assuming product people don't 'invent' work, which is faaaar from true. The more technical the area, the more nonsense 'product' generates, that engineering then has to either redo, clean up or fight. The 'product' people on 'product-led' teams also generally own the internal comms and marketing (internal) side of things, which often has the effect of silencing engineering (and many other negative side effects). (Not always but often imo)

Engineers should understand their customers and their product (whether internal or external), should understand their metrics, and should be able to make intelligent, informed decisions. Sticking a non-technical 'product' (aka marketing) person into the mix is generally net-negative imo.

> Being product-led means caring about your users. A platform teams should be product-led, not engineering-led in that very narrow meaning.

And where do product people get ideas for new features? If you're Microsoft you look at what successful competitors are doing. If you're anyone else you look at customer pain points, exactly as described in the article.

Maybe at large orgs. I’ve never found a platform/engineering led teams to engage in work that didn’t amplify the work of other teams.

It mentions toil and postmortems, which are pretty relevant to the teams you work with.