See, frankly, I just don't accept this classist bullcrap. A lot of people in the tech world like to think of themselves as some sort of higher order apart from the Masses, as if the ability to think and work in a creative capacity is a difference in kind between themselves and the "Joe Sixpack" cattle. It's not. It's a fundamental human capacity, and the only reason it's languishing in a lot of the masses is because it hasn't been given any encouragement to grow, thanks to an increasingly consumption-oriented economy that only needs creators as a source for content (and they replace creative individuals with formula processes at every opportunity, because formula processes are much more predictable and they've been steadily training the masses not to know the difference, anyway.)
The idea that "Joe Sixpack" is fundamentally lacking in a capacity that the creative elite possess, and therefore he can't make use of complex creative facilities, shouldn't be encouraged to try or given the tools to do so because his simple peasant brain wouldn't understand them, and wouldn't be happy doing any of that anyway, is false. Completely false. It is a lie; it started as a lie that creative people told themselves to make themselves feel special, and it's a lie that's been increasingly propagated by companies and organizations that like to use it as a rationalization for stifling the nascent creative urges of the masses to make them into good little consumers.
Is it harder and riskier to make good movies than crap movies? Well, train moviegoers to not expect good movies, and that's not a problem anymore! Want to cripple a computer into a glorified content-consumption device? Just tell people that that's all they ever wanted anyway, over and over, until they start believing it! And all the tech journalists and all the futurist writers will gladly help you spread this lie, because it feeds their ego.
But you know what? Repetition can make a lie seem true; it can never make it true. People still have the capability to be more than passive consumers, even if it's never been given any nurture; they still have creative urges, even if they're deeply sublimated. All the mantra repetition of "ordinary users don't want or need this" in the world will not change that. The question isn't whether these people can be more than the lowest common denominator; the question is whether anybody will come along and help them wake up from dead-eyed consumer slumber.
I think people would say the market decides these things. Take the classist line out, and what you get is that sales of tablets and smartphones are spiking while desktops are flatlining or declining somewhat. Its not just opinion its fact.
What it sounds like you are saying is that there is some sort of conspiracy to dumb down the creative people with modern software and tablets. I disagree. I think it comes down to simple marketing and focus groups and what is actually selling on the ground. If I didn't like graphically intense games and didn't code for a living, a smartphone is all I really need for modern internet usage. This doesn't discount or render invalid my ability to enjoy amigas or the linux command line. Heck, with my droid I can even write apps using this:
http://androidandme.com/2012/03/applications/mit-launches-android-app-inventor-to-all-with-a-google-account/Its awesome, and visual, and accessible. In fact, I believe the bar for accessibility to be creative is far lower than it ever has been. I love hand coding python with vim and running my progs from the command line, but I also love having IDEs that makes sharing and collaboration so easy, as well as on the fly compiling and error checking.
My Galaxy S3 is damn near a tricorder! Portables are freaking awesome!
Last edit, and it sucks but is true: Some people are honestly stupid. Some people are smart. It is what it is.
