[mikecx]

As a counter to your first example, I once had software deployed in some U.S. embassies in some not so great parts of the world. The machines the software lived on were air-gapped and on computers built specifically not to allow external connections (different keyboard/mouse connectors, no USB, no CD).

To deploy an update required a human, some long flights, and replacement parts. While it's not common, I think it would still break that definition of what is/isn't an engineer.

For me, it comes down to the level of rigor required. I think developing avionics software is probably engineering whereas building an phone app to view/share pictures of cats likely isn't.

[lelima]

What about day-to-day items, like well engineered wallet or water bottle, it's still engineering but the rigor still can be low, right?

I think even if rigor required it's low you can think of a good solution for a problem, feature or product

[tiznow]

I think that there's probably a difference between "attacking a problem to achieve progress in the utility of something" and just slapping together an app that brings literally nothing new to the table.

Making a birdhouse isn't engineering, creating a new type of dwelling for birds might be.