Here is my armchair hypothesis as to why there are so many "concessions" with this display:
- the redesigned 24-inch iMac was worked on before the Studio Display, hence why it seems like a superior product, with every detail being thought of meticulously.
- the Studio Display seems to have been thought of at that last minute, hence the use of the 5K 27-inch panel instead of using a Mini-LED panel like in the redesigned MacBook Pros
- The webcam image processing is **** - again, this display was being worked on at the last minute. Hence, Apple was forced to turn to software updates to try and rectify the problem after the fact.
In all, Apple will never admit it publicly, but I strongly believe that this display was thought of at the last minute, as a way to appease Apple enthusiasts and somehow dwindle the stockpiled supply of those 5K iMac displays that are now going to just go to waste because the 27-inch iMac is now discontinued. They gotta sell these displays somehow and Tim Apple, being the numbers guy that he is, must have thought that letting LG sell these display panels through the Ultrafine product wouldn't get rid of these panels quick enough. Apple then quickly thought of creating a new display, a 1st party display, and came up with this at the last minute. Apple having seen the numbers
Another reason to back up this theory is that now there are rumors saying that Apple will release a "Studio Display Pro" monitor, a 32-inch one that is superior to the Studio Display. Why would Apple want to release another Display so soon after the Studio Display? Obviously, Apple knows that the Studio Display is using old tech, and in order to supersede it, they quickly put together the Studio Display and spent their engineering resources on this new "Studio Display Pro" monitor instead.
As such, I believe that this Studio Display Pro will be the superior monitor: Mini-LED tech, HDR, ProMotion, and the removable/iMac-like magnetic power connector.
Let's see how well this hypothesis ages...