If git was simply too hard an easier (probably centralised) alternative would have taken over by now.
Ergo git may be hard to it's clearly not hard enough for market forces to displace it.
Ergo git may be hard to it's clearly not hard enough for market forces to displace it.
What is your point exactly?
Nowadays even companies (that would in the past self-host) rely on SaaS and are thus swayed by network effects of whatever is popular.
I am still using svn for some projects (due to large file/subdirectory handling) and this is a pain every single day.
Easier alternatives to git already exist. However for a confluence of other factors (network effects/inertia, etc) git remains dominant.
All this means is git isn't "too hard". It's hard but that hardness isn't great enough to invite a competitor to displace it.
Replacing git won't come through offering something easier, likely some other major paradigm shift will be necessary.
There were two main factors contributing to it: Linux Kernel switching to Git, so open source people had to deal with it anyway, and an even bigger factor, GitHub offering a (free) streamlined UI for those most common GitHub operations (basically, making it not-hard). If you compare GitHub to Mercurial hosting web sites of the time, one was decidedly 90s/MySpace like, and another was modern, Facebook-like.
IMHO, without GitHub, git does not become the dominant VCS it is today.