When someone says "easy to use", a high proportion of the time they're talking about a different use cases to the one you're thinking of. It's an easy mistake to make, as often one's usage pattern is
representative, but also, often it isn't. And if it isn't, it's easy to forget that someone else might be talking about how easy it is to do something else
-- either something so basic you'd forgotten it was necessary, or something so complicated you simply never needed to use it.
Classic example: 3.5 ed DnD Forums. Essentially every conversation on the forum went something like this:
Beginner: Which class
is [most powerful/easiest to play effectively/most fun]?
Expert: Oh, that's easy. Everyone knows the best class
is [wizard/cleric/non-core prestige class X]
Other beginner: What? I tried that and [I was eviscerated by a Kobold in the first encounter because I started the game with -57 hit points]. What are you smoking?
The same applies to unspoken differences in GMing style, which can make social skills overwhelmingly broken, or near-useless; or make time to prepare spells before combat into an assumed right, or a rare luxury; or make finding a highly enchanted weapon suited to your skills a certainty, or an unheard of stroke of luck.
But the same applies to all sorts of other things. I recently saw a thread asking "is [version control A] [more powerful/easier to use] than [version control B]" and it turns out that whether or not it's clear what the answer is, it depends whether you mean "for going from 'never used it' to 'first check in'" or "for editing the history in creative ways", and it's easy to dismiss the other person as wrong, when "not relevant to me and so I assumed that wasn't relevant to anyone" would have been more accurate.
 Mild exaggeration