Another factor is that focusing on pixel density above all else comes at the expense of pixel speed, there are no large monitors which meet Apples 220ppi standard and have a refresh rate of 120hz or better, no matter how much money you're willing to spend, they just don't exist.

I think the display resolution market suffers from some opposing directions: people who do productivity work like high resolutions, but since Windows (majority of the market) still seems to struggle to scale UI elements correctly some people prefer lower resolution. Also, gamers associate high resolutions with heavy GPU requirements or lower framerates. And then there are companies that are used to spending the absolute minimum on screens that are barely 1080p.

As you know, subpixel rendering only works when you have a very specific display (i.e. LCD) since it takes advantage of, and hence relies on precise characteristics of how the pixels are physically laid out in the display.

This means that subpixel rendering fails to work on displays that have different layouts, the most recent example of this have been newer OLED displays (I think QD-OLED) which has a different pixel arrangement and then you ironically had Windows users complaining that the text looked jagged (although you are able to change the algorithm for subpixel rendering to match the QD-OLED, the unfortunate problem here is that its not really possible for this to work all for applications as it depends on which UI engine you are using, Windows is a giant mess here).

Long story short, I can see why Mac removed sub pixel rendering, its basically a workaround that reflected a time when you had less dense displays which were all LCD and had the same physical layout. Nowadays though high pixel density displays are a lot more common and then you don't need sub pixel rendering at all (and it works with all of the different physical pixel layout arrangements)