This is a truism. What makes behavior predictable? Alan Cooper has a good idea. Donald Norman has some too.[1][2]

Inuitive interface is a bogon.

This is not true; naming a file is a kind of customization. Sometimes the best option for one user is completely inappropriate for another user. Factors here include: the abilities of the user (e.g., can he see font size Foo?), the work environment (e.g., can he adjust the lights in the room or does he need to change the screen contrast?), and the nature of the work (e.g., how frequently must he change context?).

They don't care so long as it keeps working, predictably. When it's broken they will care, even though they might not identify the problem. When it's not entirely broken but the unmaintainability of the code delays bug fixes and new releases, again they will care.

Users read manuals more frequently than programmers do and more frequently than they expect. There is an industry which caters to this user behaviour. This seems more like an programmer's excuse to write poor documentation or not write any at all.

See above.

Most of the time most of them don't. But I've yet to see that anyone has determined how or why this behaviour is learned. Seems like another excuse too.

This doesn't mean that status bars should go away or be abused as they are in web browsers. Like many other things, they should be useful when used, and unobtrusive otherwise.

Ergo, "Users do not read . . ." ;-)

This is why it's laughable to advertise anything as having an intuitive interface.