It's not about "whaa! I don't like to fail.".
Several things go into the logic behind the rule. Yes. Of course even experts fail at mundane things, and in TT you are free to play however you want. You could homebrew a rule that makes an auto failure even harder. Roll a 1 and roll again. Only if you fail a second time do you legit fail. Whatever.
The point is, some things just make the game more fun and less mean. It's no fun for many players to roll a 1 and fail even if you have +10 skill. Shoot. Many players don't even like it in combat.
But again, if you don't allow for SOME form of auto-hit in combat, you can strip all ability to ever beat certain enemies, etc. Frustrating players is not being a good DM. Better to err on the side of being player friendly
So, which is it? Because in this very post you have just contradicted yourself. If it's not about "I don't like to fail", why say preventing a fail state is "less mean"? Where does that even come from? Failing, or a chance to, is part of the game. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for dice rolls at all. That's not "player friendly", that's "a certain kind of player friendly". The rest of us understand that a fail state isn't "being mean", but reflects that there is a chance that you fail to do something, whether that's in combat, or a skill check. Note here that's it is called a "skill check" for a reason.
