Well, it is. But our job (as coders, as sysadmins etc) is to deliver something valuable to the users. We care about the computer so that they don't have to.
I think that a point of this article is that this value is not having a computer in itself, it's what the computer, the software, the platform, allows users to get done.
In other words (from Halt and Catch Fire) - "Computers aren’t the thing. They’re the thing that gets us to the thing.". Or this article's author: "Nobody wants a computer. They want what it does."
Yes, there exist some people who "want a computer" in and of itself. But by analogy, railways aren't organised around the needs of a few trainspotters, they're built for the mass market of people who just need to get somewhere and need a means to that end.
When the software tries to become the thing, the destination, that's an issue. It doesn't translate to a mass market, it's just for computer techies. I would hesitate to call that mass market necessarily "non-technical" because for instance what about Doctors whose profession is full of technicalities, but for them the IT is nothing more than means to other more useful ends.
Since computers are my profession, and I'll cheerfully say "computers suck so much!" after spending hours disentangling some subtle internal issue that no user in their right mind would give a crap about. But in so doing, I keep the software working smoothly.
It's funny because the person who wrote that article clearly loves computers (and has loved them for a long time)! I guess we are all a bunch of contradictions zipped up in a meat sack.
