I think part of it is caused by there being a gap between 1080p and 1440p.
Right now, all you have between the two is two options (I'm talking just common widescreen resolutions here).
One is the few niche 2048x1152 panels. That's not much higher and if you're looking more towards 1440p, it's really seemingly not much higher.
The other is 1920x1200. I believe that stands as the best option that covers that gap though (albeit it's not 16:9).
1920x1080 more replaced 1680x1050 as the mainstream rather than 1920x1200 at the mid-high end, but 1920x1200 got no real replacement (in my opinion). The mainstream got a boost with the 1920x1080 panels, and there were 1440p panels introduced to offer cheaper and 16:9, albeit less pixel, variants of the high end 2560x1600, but... I still feel there's a gap where a 1920x1200 proper refresh/replacement should have been made. They should have made a 2133x1200 or even a 2400x1350 (maybe that's too close to 2560x1440 to be needed?) resolution to replace 1920x1200.
Sorry to rant, but I'm not quite sure why there's no TN offerings of them, but maybe it's because there's not a huge demand for such a thing? I think a new 16:9 "mid-high end" panel would be a potential answer though. Before you see the mainstream make such a big jump (from 1080p to 1440p), it'll take time. That's why I think an in-between is needed to finally properly refresh 1920x1200.
Edited by Princess Garnet - 8/4/11 at 2:05pm