Don't get me wrong here. I'm near the top of list of people saying the interface leaves.....something to be desired for the newly introduced MC user...
Without turning this into a "what's wrong with the UI" discussion, can you somehow indicate what sort of thing or quality it's lacking? You (and others) suggest there's something wrong with the UI as if it's obvious to everyone what you're referring to. I can guess what you mean, but I honestly can't think of anything about the UI that's in dire need of improvement.
I'm sure this has little to do with the fact I'm a relatively experienced user. It hasn't been so long I can't remember what it was like in the beginning. Sure it was a little intimidating. What application of this breadth and depth isn't? But I don't recall any significant impediments to getting started—with the basics. The abundance of features and capabilities actually made it quite difficult to find real impediments to whatever it was I wanted to do. For me, that makes it less intimidating, not more. I quite enjoyed exploring "new" areas and capabilities, gradually expanding my use of the program over time (and I'm still doing so). I don't think you're one of them, but many people just don't want this sort of experience. All that matters to them is something that automatically works the way they want it to work—even if they don't know what it is they want. I'm sure not everyone agrees, but I don't consider such people potential MC users. Pursuing them is pointless, and attempting to cater to them is counter-productive.
I think the issue is much less with the interface itself and much more about...The default library must be designed assuming that the user has very limited metadata available about their files. However, the power of MC only really becomes apparent once you collect and use that metadata. Once you do though, the default library is set up poorly to actually manage and use the files.
So maybe this is closer to what the real issue is. This reminds me of another program that would be so much better if the developer made some effort to make it more accessible to the average user—
Microsoft Excel. It presents the hapless new user with a humongous empty grid. There's no hint of what data should be put in that grid, or how it should be arranged. Without any data, there's not much chance of figuring out what the program is capable of. I'm being sarcastic, of course. But there are many who respond to Excel this way. I'm not being sarcastic when I say to them, "That's okay—Excel wasn't designed for everyone, and perhaps you should avoid using it." I'm sure it's just coincidence, but it seems many of the same people are happy with iTunes...