As much as Ikea served me well for a period of my life (with some pieces continuing to do so), I wonder what has prevented designers of different styles from copying Ikea's model, which clearly works and scales. I know it isn't that easy, but I feel like there's a gap in the market between say...Ikea, and what I typically consider "mid to high end" Crate & Barrel/West Elm/Pottery Barn/Ethan Allen.
Ikea gets a lot of things right, but if you don't like their aesthetic, you're pretty much out of luck finding something of similar quality for that price point.
Ikea's aesthetic is not just some designer's idea of what nice-looking furniture is, it's actually designed to be flat packed. The raw materials that go into the product ARE cheaper for Ikea (particle board vs. hard woods), but not by leaps and bounds (unless you get in to the more exotic hardwoods). Flat pack is also cheaper to warehouse and distribute, and your custmers can come and collect it and build it themselves. Mid to high end furniture often has more intricate joints and curves, and is probably cut by machine, but assembled by hand in a factory.
TL;DR: You'd have trouble producing furniture in other, more traditional styles that could also be flat packed and assembled at home by the average consumer at a reasonable price point.
Mid market is a tough place to be in any business. During recessions you get eaten by cut rate competition, and during good times your brand strikes people as being too downmarket.
Besides, there has to be an easier way to make money than competing with companies like Ikea, which has spent decades wringing out costs from one end of the supply chain to the other.
Ikea gets a lot of things right, but if you don't like their aesthetic, you're pretty much out of luck finding something of similar quality for that price point.