As long as they arrive without any return-worthy issues, I'll be happy. Apple will still get their tersely-worded letter though about the shambolic handling of orders.
As long as Apple delivers your macbooks by around the estimated delivery time, you really can't complain. There are probably lots of reasons why the current order handling occurs.
Here's one (WARNING: long post, requires thinking

, and you won't understand the line-/queue-jumping until you get to the very end):
- (Note: I'm making a completely wild-a** guess here. The following is pure speculation. I have no idea how Apple and its partners actually handle ordering and production, but the following is certainly pretty.
)
- Now, for a given rMBP model (e.g., 2.3/8/256), there are certainly multiple production lines. You're definitely not going to quickly produce all these rMBPs from just one line.
- Let's say that these production lines are organized into groups (say 5 production lines per group, but it certainly could be as low as 1 production line per group). You can treat these grouped production lines as "mini factories" (I'll mention why this is useful later).
- When Apple takes orders for a given rMBP model (e.g., 2.3/8/256), Apple bundles the order in piles of, say, 100 (the actual number isn't important -- just that they're bundled).
- Each bundle (of, say, 100 orders) is then assigned to a mini-factory, and orders are fulfilled.
Well, some people will say, "That's stupid -- it's better to have one big order list and fulfill orders from that list, first-come, first-served." In an ideal world, I agree. However, this isn't an ideal world, and stuff happens sometimes.
The biggest real-world problem of having one big order list is that it represents a single point of failure, possibly worldwide. If anything happens to it, however, brief you're affecting everything. When it comes to producing physical goods, you want to maximize factory output, and any hiccup, however brief, represents lost money. This is bad.
However, let's look at the advantages of bundling orders and then sending them off to mini-factories:
- You no longer have a big, single-point-of-failure, order list. Instead, you have lots of small order lists, which are assigned/delivered to mini-factories.
- If you have BIG problems with a single mini-factory, you only have a few angry customers, who can probably be placated by baubles like a superdrive.
If you have a big failure with the one big order list, you've got hordes of angry customers with pitchforks and torches calling for a lynching. Placating them is going to be difficult and expensive.
- It's not applicable here (IIRC Foxconn? is the only contractor producing rMBPs), but the idea of mini-factories is still useful if you have multiple contractors. The one big order list has problems with multiple contractors (the one big order list would likely have to reside with Apple, but you really want the order list to be as close to the factory as possible).
Now, let's look at the side-effects of having mini-factories:
- For whatever reasons, some mini-factories might produce more (e.g., employee bonuses for high production), and some might produce less (e.g., one of the production line could have a breakdown). Two orders placed at the "same time" could ship at different times, because they were assigned to different mini-factories. Similarly, a later order could ship faster than a somewhat earlier order.
- (And here is the big reason why a much later order might ship much earlier, seemingly line-/queue-jumping.) Sometimes, people cancel orders. To do so, Apple would have to tell the mini-factory, "Cancel order XXX". However, what if Apple told the mini-factory, "Replace order XXX with order YYY", where YYY is some order that was just placed? That would explain why some people are getting their rMBPs a lot quicker than others.
However, the more I think about it, I don't think the above is quite right. If it was, we'd have been seeing big line-/queue-jumping from the beginning, but this seems to be something that's occurring only recently (now that the big demand is winding down). There's something else going on, here.
Also, IMO, the above is still, technically, first-come, first-served. It's just that there are some curlicues to it. (Besides, would you really want Apple reps try to explain the above to customers?)