(in most companies) more money, power, autonomy. Except in very early stage startups, it is the rare developer who has more of any of this than even the lowliest PM. e.g: I think Vic Gundotra makes more money, and has more power at Google than most (all?) engineers there.
I also think that engineers would be paid much better than product managers in such an organization, given the higher demand for engineering skills (there should be more engineers than product managers on any given team) and a smaller pool of potential hires.
The tradeoff is this:
1) PMs get broader visibility across the org, which tends to result in faster promotions into management for "good" PMs.
2) PMs atrophy technical skills and become more dependent on the larger organization (they acquire more firm-specific skills in econ talk) than do equivalent developers.
So, sometimes if you like your company and want to advance quicker, you will be willing to trade away some industry or general skills for firm-specific skills to get faster promotions or more power.
Edit: I imagine that's perfectly natural - when I was in backoffice IT I strongly desired to transition into project management so that I could transition into people management so that I could make meaningful decisions and get credit for them. It's probably the same in product companies except low-level devs will want to manage products so they can manage divisions so they can run big-name tech companies. Currently I'm working as a consulting dev in a small dev consultancy and I don't feel the same pull in that direction that I used to. I think maybe all we really need is to be taken seriously and to have some meaningful work.