That means I can't just click next, next, next, install, finish without getting "infected", and the guys making these installers knows this - and takes advantage of it to make extra money.
Legally, it's sketchy at best - the EU has a law (I believe it's a law, at least, someone back me up?) against it defaulting to yes.
Morally, it's plain wrong and taking advantage of the innocent.
I've been dealing with a set of users at work who could easily help themselves and continue on with their work if they would actually, you know, read the dialog boxes I spent tons of time writing to explain to them why the operation they tried was not correct and how to do it correctly. They don't want "wizard" interfaces that take them step-by-step through things, but they clearly can't use form-based interfaces that provide every option at once.
I watch them, it is their job to use this computer to do their work. In every training session I've ran, if I can get them to slow down long enough to even notice that a dialog box displayed, then they easily figure out their next step and continue on. But if I let them go at their own pace, they get confused and don't even recall that a dialog box appeared in the first place.
And it's not just non-techies. Most of the programmers I've worked with don't read the compiler's error messages. All they do is double-click the line to jump to the section of code and then try to figure it out from there, often by random-walking changes to the code until they get something that compiles. "If it compiles, it's correct", apparently. Never mind that they could save themselves a ton of time and confusion to read the error message and realize that you can't call Substring on a float!
If there weren't pertinent information on those screens, in those messages, then the installation could be done automatically. "open, next, next, next" is inferior to "open" as a user experience, but those "next" steps are there because there is important information there.
The OSX ecosystem would generally care to differ with you there, where the standard installation process is to drag a .app slightly to the right in the dmg that auto-mounts and auto-opens and shows you exactly what to do. Then you run it if you feel like it. Or even run it right from that window, it usually works, and quite a few applications will even detect it and offer to move themselves to your applications folder.
Contrast this with a very common Windows install, which is run -> tell where to extract -> skip welcome screen -> uncheck shortcuts and start menu -> install -> uncheck 'run now' and 'show readme' -> click 'finish'.
Sometimes there is important information in those steps. Very frequently there is not, and it's just a waste of time, and an annoyance. Just like the 'welcome' screen in those installers. Nearly all of that could have been done in one page, instead it's split into several, literally training people to just keep hitting next.
"X installs Y" reads to me as something happening without any chance to avoid it.
If I click next next next next finish, it's my fault these days.
Sad world, but it is what it is.
Let's work to make it better.
This has to be one of the oldest tricks in the books, and you should never click next, next, next, install, finish. Even if it is legitimate software, I won't blindly keep clicking unless I know the installer from previous experience.
This is the equivalent of "I accept the T&Cs" and then complaining later that Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whoever are doing something you didn't agree to when you never read the terms to start with (ok, bad example to some degree, I know those T&Cs can be legal and tricky to read but you get the point I'm trying to make)
I think it is a great example! The effort required to comprehend the terms for those is so onerous that a small fraction of users take the time to even try.
We might be in a better place if, when faced with such a situation, we declined to use the service because of the lengthy and opaque T&Cs.
This was posted to HN recently, and it sums it up nicely: http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-comput...
We all know of relatives that just use their computer for Facebook and Farmville, and get "infected" by a needless virus scanner and/or alternative browser every time they have to update Flashplayer.
It is so vicious that even people that are aware of this kind of practice may get caught. The fact that users "can't read" (but equally often programmers also "can't write") is no excuse.
If I download a program and install it then that's my intention. I don't intend to install other software along side of it.
Just saying, this isn't an issue about people not knowing how to use a computer. It's a dark pattern that hurts everyone.