[hydrox24]

In theory, the following things:

The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen.

The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen.

Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice.

It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.

[jart]

3:4 is a better ratio for reading and editing text. That's what Xerox chose for their Alto workstations.

[saurik]

This is probably what you mean, but I wasn't sure and then did the math: and if you take two 3:4s and put them side by side (as is being contemplated with 16:9 being split into two 8:9 panels) you get 6:4 aka 3:2 (so, this monitor).

Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).