Agree that this headline is presumptive and so is the article. Not every piece of engineering is a "slap it together in 3 weeks" build and many systems are designed with independent parts that use different technologies and scale at different rates.
I think what the author was trying to say is: "If you don't have enough experience to derive an architecture that isn't just some battle of buzz words or copying off blogs posts, you're in for a crude awakening when you have to maintain, scale, and refactor your work. Also, creating and maintaining a continuous delivery architecture with tons of moving parts is a lot of work".
At large companies (and small) devops, engineers, architects, CTOs, and many other players collaborate to develop an architecture which evolves over time and includes legacy systems, greenfield projects, duct tape, off-the-shelf bits, vendor-specific bits, open source bits, and other concerns that all have to work together. These organizations already have massive teams (or small and really good teams) taking care of making sure everything works together.
If you have a small team, little funding, and/or little experience you are probably getting in over your head trying to architect and orchestrate tons of moving pieces. It really depends on what you are building, your budget, and your team as to how you should build. Some industries and products require complexity, scale, and proper function from the beginning while others are accepting of bugs, scaling issues, and long delays.
TLDR: There's not a simple playbook that defines how everything should be engineered. Also, don't read some poorly written blog post which provides zero insight on the complexities of approaching an engineering challenge and decide to choose X or Y approach.
Content marketing - it is a thing and this is how it is done. If were reading it so is some decision maker. It only has to "look right" to someone with a minimal set of information in order for it to make the publisher look like an "expiator"