One challenge with the term over-engineering is that it implies that the over-engineered solution would be generally superior to the under-engineered one were it not for the extra cost. The article rightly points out that this is not true, but it's something that really isn't discussed as much as it should be.

A good example of this would be avg's teardown of the Juicero, in which IIRC he described it as under-engineered despite it's expensive ultra durable components. The rationale being that rather than build a design suitable for the purpose of squeezing juice out of bags they built a machine that was specced for a much more demanding task, thus driving up costs and wasting materials. The implication being if they'd spent more time or care engineering it they wouldn't have poorly engineered over-specced components.

Perhaps a preferred term should be "well engineered" or "poorly engineered". A well engineered thing is something that is well suited in a number of different dimensions, including product capability, business needs, cost (and its impact to end users in terms of price), etc. That sometimes means ugly code, it sometimes means technical debt, but it always implies elegance at a higher level than just the code or components, but an elegance that encompasses a wholistic understanding of the context in which that code exists.

In the software world some examples of poor engineering might be using kubernetes for a small internal app that could run well on a single VM or container. Or, in a different context NOT using kubernetes for the exact same app, but in an organization where k8s is standardized, thus creating more inconsistency and driving up organizational complexity in order to reduce local complexity.