Not necessarily. There's a good chance there was just someone who knows nothing about UX and is never going to actually use the software approved it for others to use. Or it might be that despite a poor UX, it's still the only product to do what you need. Despite a poor UX, it's better than the other guy's even worse UX, at least for now.
There's been loads of software that has been successful just by taking the idea from already existing software and making it more user friendly.
You seem to be confused about better in the objective sense. I am saying that designers make things fancy to get attention, especially from product managers. No claims about what is better need arise. From the perspective of the ux designer, they are doing what the market is selecting for and rewarding them for.
By analogy, You don't get to claim what is better in evoulution and natural selection. There is only what is selected for, which might not have any preference for what you consider good or not
Haha, no :). I'm just advocating the same thing you seem to - understanding market incentives as an optimization system, and realizing that its goals are not always aligned with human goals.
While dark patterns make money, I choose to not engage in them because I also value trust, convenience, long term relationship and this means that I create certain experiences for my client.
Just one example where profitability is unfit to be the only criterium.
I did not assume "dark patterns". I am explaining behavior from the viewpoint of the UX Designer, especially getting work. As a product owner, you are free to choose what you want to prioritize. You don't get to chose what other product owners prioritize. Some product owners really like fancy checkboxes. go to any apple page and tell me if you see standard, unstyled html text boxes, combo boxes, and check boxes.