This is actually a very narrow way of looking at users. There are plenty of situations that the users aren't aware of their "problem" or "need". In other words, they are not aware, that they could do something more easily, comfortably, etc. Or maybe they are aware, but don't have a solution. These people never fulfil the "hacker" or "expert" condition.
I would even argue, that designing primarily for anyone who could be described as "hacker" or "expert", is a highway to hell. These people have significantly different mind and way of using products (especially tech products), than mass market. So picking up this particular segment is a bad choice for most (not all) products.
> These people have significantly different mind and way of using products (especially tech products), than mass market.
I think the point the article is trying to make is the high-expectation customers have or quickly find a way that definitely works for them. Whereas the typical customer will poke at it, say it doesn't work, and move on.
From a design standpoint, you want to start with an overall system that definitely works with some motivation and then solve the problems that block other customers from using it.
And I think it's implicit in their argument that you won't solve these problems for everyone who could potentially use the product, and that's a business tradeoff you have to make.
I would even argue, that designing primarily for anyone who could be described as "hacker" or "expert", is a highway to hell. These people have significantly different mind and way of using products (especially tech products), than mass market. So picking up this particular segment is a bad choice for most (not all) products.