I want one, to bad they will probably be quite a bit more expensive than a pair of equivalent 16:9 monitors.

I hope that one day they get over this wideness madness and start again making screens with reasonable wideness for portable usage.

2560x1080=FAIL
It needs more pixels in both directions to make sense.

Very low resolution for a monitor this big. Wake me when 4k desktop monitors come out.

@BZD
Not certainly complete fail. I think that these monitors will have very good use cases.
Yes, in their example they are showing 4 different windows on it - that is nonsense because of the lack of horizontal resolution.
Even when you display two separate documents on it side by side then even then it does not make sense.
But for example for a car driving game it would probably produce quite interesting experience.
I think that the panel size diversity is a good thing.

A case of the Emperor's new clothes, I am afraid. It is top-chopped, not wide.
Makers push this wide business because the size numbers look better. They should go by surface area instead of diagonal measurement. It made sense when TVs were all the same aspect but now it is ridiculous. As monitors are measured diagonally. It appears as if you are getting more because the measure is larger even as surface area goes down.
The fact is that if you are close to a source then 3:2 is the best. That is just human physiology.
Next makers will sell you a 50in TV that is only 5 in tall. Total area 250in square. A 16x16 would have more area...but "50in" sounds impressive. Maybe I can interest you in a 100 in, 2.5 in high. Or perhaps 250 in, 1 inch high. Have to role that one up.
It is not the width of film you remember it is the resolution...just errant association. They could have shot exactly the same and made the screen taller loosing nothing on the sides. Everything in the same place, just more sky but they would need taller theaters and that would have cost more.
Monitor/TV makers should go with square feet. Government would have to mandate the change. But government is not looking out for consumers of late...well...for the last few decades. They probably flunked geometry anyway.
Everyone wants resolution, they just don't know it. That is what permits a filmmaker to shoot a larger scene and keep the detail of the actors. 4k can't get here fast enough.

I saw the 4k comments and wasn't sure if that resolution is necessary for something as small as a monitor so I checked some numbers in a PPI calculator.
A 15.4 inch Retina Macbook is 220 PPI (pixels per inch) iPhone 5 has about 325 PPI 4k/UHD is 3840×2160 and would work out to about 200 PPI on a 22 inch monitor which is proabbly close to "retina" at that viewing distance. 4K on a 28 inch monitor would be 157 PPI. For comparison the most common screen resolution for 2012 is 1366x768 and works out to just 78 PPI on a 20 inch monitor. My older 1680x1050 monitor is about 95 PPI and the one in this article is 94 PPI (2500x1080 @ 29 inches) Apple's $1,000 2560x1440 27" display is 109 PPI
It looks like 4k would be useful for monitors because they are so much closer than TV's but even then 4k per screen under ~28" is about the max that gains would be noticeable at. It will be a while before they become affordable though by the looks of things. LG and Sony just started selling 4k TV's for $20,000 and $24,000 so I assume it will be a while still before I see a 4k monitor in my price range.

I have to agree with BZD, any desktop monitor that has only 1080 vertical resolution is a FAIL, it needs to be at least 1200 or higher.
If you are using a monitor for serious work you need the extra height otherwise there is more vertical scrolling than necessary in documents or CAD drawings.

@ivan4
You are right. This is the exact problem of the new monitors - the lack of vertical resolution. Unfortunately most people do not get it.
@Diachi
I think that what is important is the actual resolution of the screen. By that I mean the resolution by current common pixel density.
For example 2880x1800 14" screen is no better than 1440x900 screen because it is still lacking the vertical resolution - it is just more crisp.

@Kris Lee I agree that panel size diversity is a good thing and perhaps I should have been a little more positive in my original statement.
However I am frustrated by the slow place in the development of better displays. Over a decade ago I was using a 20" viewable CRT monitor with 2048x1536 resolution and while this was a premium thing a premium monitor today is 2560x1440 with 30" viewable (and it has been so for a long time). (Note. I am disregarding the insanely priced specialist monitors)
My frustration is not so much with the companies making monitors but with the users not demanding better monitors. It seems most people don't have a clue that they could have something so much better. Thankfully it does seem that with smart phones and pads introducing the wider public to really good screens there is a rise in demand for better monitors all round, but most likely we shall still have to wait for 4K TV's for something to really happen on our desks.