Well, yes and no.
Yes to higher resolutions and escaping this 1080p curse we've been stuck with due to the economics of scale.
No in terms of specifics. That resolution is only one aspect ratio (16:10). While I'm a big fan of 16:10, letterboxing is just annoying when watching movies. For people who care, and want a 16:9 display, the resolution you should be asking for is 2560x1440.
Lord Method Man, on 03 November 2012 - 02:27, said:
16x10 is an obsolete aspect ratio.
This is an example of the effects of scale. While I think work is more comfortable with the extra vertical resolution, 16:9 completely destroyed 16:10 because it was cheaper to manufacture (monitor panels could be lumped in with TV panels). High-resolution displays are helping us escape the TV technology trap, though, and we might see a rise in != 16:9 displays over the next few years.
On the other hand, if 4K really takes off, large displays might just jump on that bandwagon, and you might start seeing a lot of 27-30" 4K 16:9 monitors on the cheap.