I disagree to a point, I think you need to appreciate that the term simple is not at all simple in itself and is totally relative to the observer. For example,

I disagree to a point, I think you need to appreciate that the term simple is not at all simple in itself and is totally relative to the observer. For example, my parents bought all the gadgets and gizmos a kid could ever want, and I though growing up with them and pressing and getting myself out of awkward situations (like trying to figure out what "change language" would be in mandarin after changing the languate on the DVD player just to see what would happen) I would consider something like a Sky box, a pre-amp or a DVD player simple no matter what the interface (tactile and digital) looked like a simple tool to use. My parents, who bought all these things and used them a little are consistently lost whenever they have to replace their digital radio, or DVD player. All the functions are the same, but the experience is different, and for them that means everything is different and unknown. Their understanding of simple is from way before we even had our fist microwave. Simplicity is not a myth, it's just not a constant. This is pretty much addressed, but not argued, explicitly in the article: the measure if simple you use for your product must be appropriate to your target demographic and not the definition of the engineering team or a think-tank. It is possible for simple to not be simple.