nice to see the articles

They're not stretched. They're squashed. A 29" 26:9 screen has only very slightly more screen area than a 24" 16:10 display, and smaller than a 24" 4:3 display. The 38" panel compares even less favourably to more standard ratios.

Not that this necessarily affects the target market, and nor is it necessarily the case that the "impressive" 1366x480 resolution (about the same pixel count as 1024x600) is a problem for them, but let's not get unduly excited.

Besides, 1366 pixels is the number of the beast, whose sole redeeming feature is letting 1024x768 production lines get above 1280x720 HD resolution. 1366x768 panels have been responsible for mangling more people's impression of HDTV than I dare contemplate, and the 1366 part is a pain for computers to support. I'm sure there's a really good reason why 1366x398 is suitable for a specific application, because otherwise it feels as though the hardware team has a grudge against someone's graphics driver group.

Viva la difference, though, I'll give them that. If only it had been 3840x1200.

You say stretched, I say collapsed, when you read the resolution it's clear they just cut the top/bottom of a old normal display.
It's handy for signs though obviously.

Where Talkin Turtle TV Dinner Style, with Pengie suits. Plosh.

Weight Lifting Ads at Tube, Vertical. Kids could Stop & imitate it on Way to Fair.

New House of Mirrors at Carnival....
Drashek

I dont' even want a 16:9 monitor. They take up more desktop space while providing less on-screen working area. Also most digital content is still vertical page format... Its a shame 4:3 panels are a thing of history. 

I've tried working with a 16:9 panel rotated 90deg to provide a 9:16 format. It worked, but the viewing angle limits of LCDs made color reproduction unusable in that direction.