I think the article basically makes this point implicitly: Thus far, quantum computing has been mis-explained, so to truly explain it properly requires disabusing the reader of certain notions first.

That being said, QM and QC is not particularly hard to explain, but the explanation sounds as believable as something else that could be completely made up, without some underlying knowledge, that intrinsically is seen as harder to understand than something that just leads logically from familiar experiences.