I'm a tec person, so having more to setup is a positive thing for me. But anyway, PCs today are very streamlined and most people use them to things like working, the familiarity with the PCs make them a no brainer to use. For most uses, you just need to install Steam and play 

Both good for the industry and the consumer:

- Exclusives can enjoy the protection of the platform holder instead of being cancelled at any sign of difficulty.
For example Team Ico, Polyphony Digital have been allowed to stick to their vision and take as much time as they needed to deliver their games. 
- Exclusives can capitalize on the platform specific hardware, like Astrobot and Zack & Wiki, but also enhance games with gyro controls, use of haptic feedback on the Switch, use of microphone/speaker in the dualsense controller.
- Exclusives can be better optimized simply because they only have to run on one hardware target.
- Exclusives can keep the price of the hardware down.
- Exclusives better retain their value, better if you want to collect or sell your games.
- Exclusives promote competition, competition drives up quality.

The negatives are not really negatives imo
(i) Reduced consumer choice and welfare when confined to an individual system VS Paradox of choice, too much choice leads to fomo.
(ii) Creates a fragmented library across multiple devices VS gives each console its own character through its library and hardware specific differences.
(iii) New entrants to the industry will struggle to compete with systems which have decades of exclusive experiences on-hand VS Doesn't that only get more difficult without exclusives? You need exclusives to convince people to buy your new device.
(iv) Loss in software sales due to being restricted to a single device VS Increase in sales due to less competition on the device. (See launch game sales)
(v) Hinders the perceived market value of third-party software VS Does it? Any examples?

Exclusives are inconvenient if you don't have the right system (or subscription nowadays for TV) yet it drives competition and keeps the cost of the hardware / subscription down. XBox ditched exclusives and now the next XBox is going to be a premium 'console' after already hiking the price the most.

99% of the population are not tec people ;)

The familiarity with PCs is a thing of the past, people use their phone or laptop nowadays for work. While desktops are more and more associated with the office / work. Not relaxation. Plus I doubt there are many people that work on a TV... So you're either playing games on a monitor of moving the box back and forth.

On consoles you don't need to install a thing, no need to setup windows. Plug in a hdmi cable, turn it on, get comfy on the couch and play, controller included.

A net good, yes. They can be designed around one console and give it more of an identity.
I do feel like a balance is needed. There were plenty of games in the past that didn't need to be exclusives but were due to funding, publisher choice, etc.
Xbox is an extreme. No games are exclusive to Xbox Series, and the console exclusives can be played on PC. Shoot, some first-party games are going multiplat.
I think Nintendo and PlayStation have it figured out. Most third-party games are not true exclusives, at least not in the long-term. But there are still first-party games on hand. And since they're not as essential to PlayStation as they are to Nintendo, some have gone to PC.
Final Fantasy games recently were an example of timed exclusives gone wrong. XVI and Rebirth would've done better I think launching day and date on PC and maybe multiplat after the first year.
I think actively arguing for games, especially third-party games, to be exclusive is quite ridiculous though.

Yes; a game that is tailored to a specific console can make better use of its hardware than a game that has to run on a multitude of different configurations.

Explain how exclusives are consumer friendly?

1) Forcing a customer into buying your hardware to play a certain game is not consumer friendly.

2) Devs want to sell their work to as many people as possible, only reason they don't is due to a paycheck or owned.

3) Majority of hardware is now streamline, we have seen 3rd party games release more polished then some 1st party games.

4) People only love exclusives when it benefits them, watch the attitudes change when it goes agaisnt them.

So no, Exclusives are not good for the industry. Hardware should be sold based on features, value and quality, not locking software to it forcing consumers to purchase or FOMO.

Thats flat out wrong. 

We have seen time on time again 1st party exclusives coming out buggy and seeing polished 3rd party exclusives.

You are literally making excuses for lazy devs not spending the time on optimisation.

You seemed to have missed a key word: can. 

If you optimize for one platform you can spend more of your time and resources on it than if you have to split it over PS5/Series X/Series S/Switch 2/PC/etc.

Thats just an assumption on the Devs part. If we can see 3rd party devs out preform 1st party devs, then it just proves that's not true.

A small example below,

Spiderman 2: a 1st party game, released with many game breaking bugs.

Balders Gate 3: a 3rd party game, released more polished and had to release on everything.

It all falls under the quality of the Devs, not the amount of hardware it releases on.

It's not an assumption, it is a fact that optimizing for more platforms means resources have to divided.

This example's like saying "that woman over there has red hair, therefore black haired women don't exist", it doesn't disprove the broader fact.