It depends on what you mean by "simpler." The thinking that goes into shifting using a compact double isn't really simpler, and the bigger gap in gearing between rings creates more impetus to shift the back in conjunction with front shifts. There is less theoretical overlap in the gearing, but that doesn't result in more usable combinations. There are fewer combinations where cross chaining is a problem, but you're more tempted to use the combinations where it is (because, for instance, you don't want to shift into the small ring for a stop sign). Even the simpler tuning is less than you might think because the difference in ring sizes reduces the effectiveness of the shifting ramps. If simple and consistent front shifting is the primary goal, it's hard to argue against friction shifting, which works perfectly with a triple.

For a gravel grinder a compact combination might make sense (though 50-39-30x11-36 has more range than 48-34x11-36). For a cyclocross racing rig it definitely does (at 46-36/38). For commuting, I don't see it.

On the other hand, no non-professional cyclist has needed a 54T chain ring since the 12T cassette was introduced.



(Apologies to the OP for going off on a tangent.)