I have three 30" displays on my desktop. When I want to create and consume at home, I strongly prefer my desktop computer to my tablets and my cell phone. I can relax in my chair with a full-screen video on one monitor, my social media on another, and something I am composing (words, code, whatever) in the center.
I would pay substantial money to replace all three of these monitors with one that spanned the same width (~6 feet), was 50% taller (~3 feet), with slightly higher pixel density, and was of course seamless. As someone else said, ideally it would be slightly concave so that from my vantage point, it doesn't appear convex.
The manufacturers are as much to blame for our culture's embrace of "good enough" on the desktop as consumers' passivity. I personally am anything but passive about my desktop demands; but you're correct, many are. Still, I feel those passive consumers could be stirred to an active, interested, or perhaps even high-demand state if desktop technology moved forward.
If Microsoft, HP, Dell, Lenovo, the whole gamut, are concerned about desktop sales, they should wake up and give us a reason to buy a new desktop PC.
2. That's a matter of preference or tolerance of today's mediocrity. As I've ranted elsewhere, many/most people are also comfortable with MPEG artifacts and lossy compression. I long for the day where bandwidth and capacity allow us to discard lossy compression to a dustbin.
My eyesight isn't what it used to be now that I'm much older. But I still can clearly see the shocking difference in clarity when I hold an OLED high-definition phone flat to my 30" LCD monitor. It's night and day. The phone's display makes my 30" LCDs look like ancient history. Sad thing is: they're quite new.
Try it. Sit 3 feet from your desktop monitor, as I am, and hold your phone up flush with your monitor. Which looks better?
Imagine if your desktop monitor looked that good. But also filled your field of view. Maybe that's not for you, but it's for me, and I would pay dearly for it.
