In short - they're catering for the typical user, and the typical user doesn't use all the features that the OP thinks they need.
In short - they're catering for the typical user, and the typical user doesn't use all the features that the OP thinks they need.
My theory is that the assumption there is some kind of meaningful "Average user" which a product is then built for ultimately destroys utility in software.
If you have 50 features that on average 1% of people use, you can easily reach the false conclusion nobody cares about these features, when on aggregate 90% might use at least one of those features. Thus in aiming for the average, you haven't designed for anyone at all.
For what it's worth, my wife and my mom are totally lost with the new Gmail, and they're the very average typical user.
Thankfully these examples are optional, unlike the author's qualms.
I hate I when organisations like Google, who have no real personal contact with end users, just do a redesign without consulting the people who actually us their products. It's the Alan Day school of design, and it is totally unnecessary.
Nevertheless, a refrigerator that hid everything except the milk when I open the door would be a massive failure.