That doesn't really solve the problem -- in practice, you can't use that at 1080p or 1200p, only at 900p or 1800p. (Yes, it can in theory scale to other resolutions, but non-integer scaling is blurry.)
It would be nice to have something that could run a higher resolution that wasn't just pixel doubling of a lower resolution.
Also, I expect 1080p will be around for a fairly long time; it's a good size for TV-type displays, and we still use those.
Well my main concern is that I currently have a Windows laptop at 1440, I would have much preferred an upgrade to 1920 as this would have given me far more real estate. Is 1680 (or whatever it is) any different on a Mac to Windows or rather are the resolutions different between OSs? I highly doubt it but I simply can not justify spending so much on the retina MacBook!
See, I don't think that they're overpriced. I think they get to be expensive, yes, but the $2199 (1999 if you're a student) isn't bad at all, compared to that priced one on the regular macbook pro. You're getting SSD, more RAM, and a great IPS display. Nice tradeoff. Can't wait for mine
MBPs are 16:10, therefore are not configured for 1080p which is a 16:9 TV standard. The Hi-Res 1680x1050 screen is about as high as most people would want on a 15" screen anyway. If you want 1080p+ in an MBP then I suggest you go find an end-of-line late-2011 17" MBP with the 1920x1200 screen.