They all follow interoperability standards that have been around decades and that customers have come to expect as normal. Vendor lockin here isn't an "innovation" customers want
The thing is that it's not about what you think the product should be, because the product won't morph itself into your desire. Just because there are 100 variations of the same monitor out there are all behave nearly the same (And might as well be condensed into 1 version with 2 bezel color options) doesn't mean that that is all there is to it.
The ECU in your car uses the same SoC as the ECU in a truck. But that doesn't make your car a truck, or a truck your car. Just because there are technical similarities doesn't mean that therefore the products must be the same. If a manufacturer decides to focus on some form or function and simply not make other forms or other functions, that simply means that what you wanted and what the product is do not match, and therefore you should either not buy the product, or adjust your wishes. Since the latter isn't really required, not buying the product, but buying a different product instead seems to make the most sense to me.
Trying to make yourself the center of the universe and complaining that 'they should have made what I wanted' neither helps you nor does it help interaction with other people. Pick the product that you want instead.
This is a monitor and I want it to work as a MONITOR where is the rocket science here ? I don't think I could see someone defending Linux exclusive monitors, then why are some people defending apple's inability to make a monitor this expensive behave as such ?
Trying to dilute what a thing actually is makes no sense, especially if you're essentially then trying to boil it down to the $100 category of computer monitors for home web browsing usage.
Technically a display panel, row and column drivers, a tcon and an interface buffer is "a monitor" too. So is a CRT. And a DLP screen. But they are not the same thing and are not useful in the same scenarios.
