No, it’s not a matter of mere “difference.” Societies that don’t have computers and space ships and cars are more primitive—they live more like humans did originally, and like animals still do—than societies that have those things. It’s a tremendously bad idea to lose sight of the that.
Whether “primitive” is the same thing as “bad” or “good” is indeed a value judgment. There’s certainly benefits to a primitive lifestyle (lesser rates of chronic diseases, etc.)
Yes, in a technical usage of the word "primitive" sometimes encountered in discussions of evolution, it refers simply to something that comes early. For instance, one might ask whether a trait shared by two species is "primitive", meaning it was present in their common ancestor, or instead evolved independently in the two species. There is no value judgement there.
However, in non-technical discussions, "primitive" is often taken to mean "not as good", which is indeed a value judgement, and that's the usage meant in my comment.
Whether “primitive” is the same thing as “bad” or “good” is indeed a value judgment. There’s certainly benefits to a primitive lifestyle (lesser rates of chronic diseases, etc.)