1. Normals stick around a lot longer and are far more loyal than early adopters.
2. Normals are friends with other Normals, which propagates the cycle.
3. The Normals group is a larger market than the early adopters and techies group.
4. Normals appreciate simple, so it's easier and less time consuming to build a product for them.
Further reading on Chris Dixon's blog:
For example, the ISP I use targets technical users, and they seem to be doing quite nicely.
Technologists enjoy new things even if they don't work, early adopters are trying to solve a problem but don't mind going first as long as it works. Pragmatics (early majority) want to solve a problem using tools that other pragmatics are also using because they want the comforts of a whole product. Conservatives (late majority) are very cost conscious and want it dead simple. Laggards make do with pre-existing solutions until they are no longer available at a reasonable price.
By the way, it's extremely difficult to build simple products that work reliably. They always come later. It's much easier to build an innovative productive that is partially reliable but provides functionality or performance that is not available.
I think all this labelling as "normal" / "other" is unhealthy, because it leads to unexamined associations about the group, and thoughts like "the 'normal' people are morally better, anyone with different preferences is wrong and evil" or the way some people treat the "normal" as the only kind of people that exist, and try to deny the existence of any group that has a different preference.
There are certainly different groups with different preferences and abilities, but I think it's important to avoid value-laden terms when thinking about them. (except possibly "value" in the strictly commercial sense").
Plus, the /euro/ syllables can be stressed for extra condescension points!
The fact of the matter is the phase, "normals" used in the article is just a way of referring to a large group of average consumers in a succinct way.