This is a great comment, thank you.Apple should almost never create products that works like those from other companies or mimics them. There are hundreds of displays out there from other companies ranging from decent to insanely great.
If there are 50 great 4K monitors out there, we don't need Apple to create the 51st. Just buy one of the 50 existing monitors.
As Tim Cook has said several times, Apple should only create products if they feel they can improve on the situation or make something which separates it from the competition. It usually means doing things which are niche and specific.
A lot of Apple products, including their displays, are optimised for very specific use cases and often with integration with their other products. If you fall outside those very specific use cases, the product from Apple is usually ill-suited for you. It's very often Apple's way or it sucks really bad.
If there are 1 billion PC and Mac users there, 99% of them would be better served with a non-Apple display, but that still leaves out 10 million users who might be served well by the Apple Studio Display. And. may only 0.1 or 0.2% will end up buying it.
Apple does specific computing and if you are into versatile computing, you will often be unhappy with Apple.
One thing I will take issue with, however, is the idea that this precludes Apple from designing, say, a 24" or 27" mid-level monitor that would fit in the sub-$900 category and would fit the needs of 90% or so of Mac users. It wouldn't need to be "2x scaled" or even be "retina", but it would still interface with Apple's OS and fit Apple's design language.
There are a ton of Mac users who want something like this, and to be honest, that sector of Mac users feel like Apple is giving them the Italian salute by over-engineering a display that adds a bunch of features that add nothing to their workflow, but that they nonetheless have to pay for just to get Apple's build quality and OS integration.