Why?
I think it is more important that there is a variety of OSs to suit different people in different contexts. Trying to make one OS for all possible people in all possible contexts would be a maintenance nightmare and an impossible thing to achieve.
I’ve used various versions of Windows since 98
You will find quite a few active forum members (like me) who go even further back 
, so this info does not add any weight to your points.
You’re not making one OS to serve all purposes though. This is a desktop OS, which serves a different purpose than a minimal server OS for example, that would not have a GUI. A desktop OS that presents a GUI to make using the OS easier for the user serves the same purpose as other similar OSes whether the developers (or other experienced users) like it or not.
And as mentioned before, Manjaro is being pre-installed on machines available off the shelf today. Manjaro can’t control who buys them. They WILL be purchased by users who are not experienced. That is an absolute certainty. Further, Manjaro is seeking to be more accepted in enterprise, in which there will also definitely be more users that are not experienced, and expect stability, and have updates handled for them.
For example, will Manjaro support or the forum simply admonish users who purchase a system with Manjaro such as an Orange Pi NEO, or Zotac Gaming Zone Pro, Star Labs, Slimbook laptop experiences issues? Because I guarantee there WILL be users who buy those who don’t know much about using a system like Manjaro, and expect some increased level of automation (such as automated updates). Especially users who purchase the handheld devices.
I don’t stand under anyone who wants to make Linux more popular or more exclusive
If a new user does not understand something about Manjaro they can read the documentation, search forum and post a request for further explanation
For better or for worse, in the eyes of users, OSes that look similar, are expected to work similarly. For example, users expect iOS and Android to work similarly at some level (have automated updates, method of navigation, app installation, etc). Developers don’t control these expectations. In a similar vain, desktop OSes are expected to serve the same job in the eyes of the vast majority of users.
I suppose if a large number of these people come forward something might have to be done. But that something is likely to be helping them to realise there are different ways of doing things. Just like if they switch from MS Windows to macOS they have to learn new things.
I remember my first attempt at using macOS had me puzzling over the mouse (who stole my mouse buttons, I cried) and having to learn where the hang the menu bar had gone.
I think I’ll just accept that we have different opinions.
Automated updates are something more fundamental at a lower level to the user experience than just the GUI IMO, where there will be some inevitable differences (or similarities) depending on the DE chosen, and the user’s past experience.
In my opinion those users can be served by the unstable and testing branches, leaving stable for those who do want updated packages (especially compared to Ubuntu/Debian), but still want them to be like 99% guaranteed to work.
And that’s the crux of it all.
UNIX systems in general, and especially so GNU/Linux, have always come with all of the documentation installed, but at the same time, with the condition or expectation that the user would not be too lazy to read the manuals or do their research — the latter of which is a lot easier now than back in the 1970s-1980s, thanks to search engines and supportive online communities such as ours.
This is where the saying that UNIX isn’t user-unfriendly but that it’s picky about its friends comes from. GNU/Linux is a UNIX system, and UNIX expects its users to assume responsibility.
Consumer-grade operating systems like MS-Windows do not require this, because they are geared towards enslaving the user to the will of the proprietary software industry. Intelligent and responsible people with agency don’t make good cattle for the corporate exploitation machine.
Windows machines are glorified typewriters, shopping tools, gaming consoles and television set replacements. GNU/Linux machines on the other hand drive the Large Hadron Collider, the various Mars rovers, the space observatories, climate research, molecular biology research, geophysical research, and virtually all of the A.I. systems currently available — Microsoft’s own A.I. being the only exception. Oh, and all of the dinosaurs in “Jurassic World” and all of the special effects in “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” were all designed and rendered on GNU/Linux too.
With great power comes great responsibility. One cannot have one without the other.
I hated it in 1995.
13 posts were split to a new topic: The GNU/Linux user experience versus the MS-Windows user experience
Reality is that which will always prevail, even though one might not believe in or doesn’t like it. 
Somehow, this seems appropriate…
Updating repository packages usually requires a reboot so it makes sense to have system check for updates before shutdown
Updating Flatpak packages does not require a GUI plugin or a system reboot and can be implemented at any time - flatpak update and it makes more sense to me to check if an update package is available before using older version
Having more Flatpak options might lead to some new users assuming that Manjaro Forum supports Flatpak packages rather than upstream maintainers
All my flatpaks are updated via pamac-manager, when they arrive. I see no problem updating flatpaks along with the repo updates.
There really is no need to shut down a Linux computer, on a regular basis. Rebooting is something you do once or twice a month on Manjaro (sometimes we get 2 full system upgrades).
If you want to park it, temporarily, place it in Sleep. If you want to take it somewhere, place it in Hibernate.
Shutting down is rarely necessary, and rebooting is only something necessary when you have a Kernel level update.
For my desktop I tend to shut it down when I know I’m not going to use it for a while, and I don’t want the small power drain of it sleeping and refreshing the memory. And that install of Manjaro doesn’t have hibernation setup.
My laptop though, does have hibernation setup with a separate swap partition, and it’s set to “suspend-then-hibernate”, after 2 hours of suspend, it will wake up, and hibernate itself.
I do shut down my laptop though when I don’t have anything open, and I’m not going to use it for a while. This is a rather rare occurrence though, at least compared to my desktop. Helps that Linux boots up quickly, so it kinda doesn’t matter that it was shut down last time I used it. I am getting more in the habit of just closing my laptop and putting it away nowadays.
Interesting.
I live in rural Queensland. We have a Solar powered, power supply. In fact we have only 4 KW hours of battery storage, with which we run 2 refrigerators and 2 freezers. 1 full size refrigerator and 1 bar fridge, a full sized Chest Freezer and a Waeco Fisherman’s freezer.
We also run all our other power requirements, from that battery setup. At night on very cold nights (believe it or not it does get cold out here -5 Celsius, is not uncommon in our Winter ), we even use Electric blankets.
The upshot of this is, if the next morning is exceptionally overcast we have to run a generator (we probably run a generator for about 12 to 16 hours a year). That’s what 4 KW hours gives us with our set up.
The point here, is that the minuscule drain from 2 laptops in Sleep mode is not even noticeable, it makes no difference to how depleted our batteries are.
So I don’t believe that is something anyone need worry about.
For me its more the general power saving mindset of, if I’m not using it, and I don’t foresee using it for a while, turn it off. Similar to turning the light off in a room I’m not in etc.
I basically never run the heat in the winter even when it gets really cold, partially because I like the cold, but also because I can deal with being cold, and I’d rather not spend the power to heat my apartment when I don’t need to.
But I understand your point that its a very small amount of power.
If it’s solar-generated, a few watts of excess draw is of no consequence as long as the standby (reserve) supply can deal with it. 
Sometimes, if the system has a bit of over-capacity, it is actually desirable to add extra load to compensate.
I wish I were in that position; maybe some day.
Except that a computer is not a light bulb.
Computers run best when kept under a constant load and at a constant temperature. Shutting them down all the time and then restarting them actually causes a lot of wear, which will shorten the lifespan of the components in the machine — especially so the fine circuitry, spinning hard disk drives and the power supply — and then you’re going to need the money you saved on electricity for buying new equipment earlier.
Furthermore, the power spikes during boot-up — or waking from hibernation — will cost you more in terms of energy consumption and will largely neutralize the amount of money you thought you were saving by shutting it down.
Wouldn’t that depend on how long it’s been since you shut down?
For example, it’s easy to understand that shutting down and waking up a computer every 5 minutes would likely be very inefficient. But would the same be true if the time was 8 hours? 12 hours?
Further study is needed to put numbers to these claims.
The wear & tear on the hardware would be the same, because it’s the booting up — even a resume from hibernation is a boot-up — which sends spikes of electricity through your system, and which has to spool up the hard disk drive(s), and which makes the fans work overtime to try and keep the system’s temperature down.
Even your CMOS battery will have a shorter life if you shut down the computer, because then it will be used for preserving your UEFI/BIOS settings and for powering your onboard real-time clock, which will otherwise receive its power from the PSU.