I never liked that assumption either. It seems as though every generation has a great number of people who have a very basic knowledge of computers, even if they use them on a daily basis. That's fine. We all have our own priorities in life and, for some of us, computers rank higher than others. Those people are also likely to be knowledgeable in other areas, simply because they see those other areas as being more important to them. It has nothing to do with age and a whole lot to do with interests.

That said, companies like Kobo are trying to cater to both enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts. The former may be able to put up with more complex machines, but the latter would see them as a turn-off. Like it or not, the following process is complex to a lot of those non-enthusiasts: download a book from the Internet, plug reader into computer, copy book from download directory to reader, unplug reader from computer, browse for file on reader. Each of those steps are necessary, and often have multiple sub-steps (especially if you're trying to keep things organized).

Kobo has decided to streamline the process. Everything purchased through them is synchronized through the WiFi connection or their desktop software. Everything borrowed from libraries, or purchased through sources that use Adobe's DRM, is synchronized through Adobe Digital Editions. Specialized software, not a generic file manager, is being used to mediate transactions. If that's the case, why would you suddenly switch to a file manager when using the device itself? You can create a specialized tool that helps readers find books by title and author, rather than the abstraction of file names. You can allow them to arrange books into shelves (a concrete term), rather than directories (an abstract term). Heck, this whole thread belies our technical bias because we are thinking of books as files and categories of books as directories.

Why not satisfy both crowds? In practice it's possible. The question is, is it desirable? From Kobo's perspective, they would have to spread its development resources even further (developing additional features, dealing with the inevitable bugs from those additional features). From the user's perspective, every additional feature makes the software a little more complex. Add enough of those "just one more feature" features, and you end up with software that's a lot more complex. In large part, this is the distinction between Windows and Macintosh. Windows is better because it does more. Macintosh is better because it's more accessible to non-experts. People fear trying new things on Windows because it exposes a lot of functionality that can "break the computer". People are more confident with Apple products because there is very little exposed functionality that can break things. Since Kobo seems to be going after a broader market, it's best to keep things simple.