[angersock]

  and made the product worse (a heavier screen farther away from your head).

I think you're being both unreasonable and ignorant--who're you to say that adding 30 entire grams (while exceeding the original specs, most importantly refresh rate) is making the product worse? Additionally, how do you know that a change in screen distance is better/worse?

Don't be a jerk. :(

EDIT: Reworded unkind remark.

[schwabacher]

My problem isn't really with the changes - there is nothing they can do if they can't source the previous panel, and I am sure they chose the best one available. My issue is with how the changes were presented - instead of 'we are sorry, we made a mistake, and here is how we are fixing it' it was 'we are happy to announce..'

The reason a larger screen distance is worse is that the torque on your head is the product of weight, distance, and gravity, so an increase in the distance will cause your neck to tire faster.

[cma]

Put an equal torque on the back of your head, then distance doesn't matter so much (aside from overcoming inertia when moving your head).

[modeless]

Unfortunately they didn't say refresh rate is improved (i.e. 120 FPS screen updates), only that response time (latency) and switching speed (motion blur) are improved.

[angersock]

I stand corrected--I had lumped latency and motion blur into my head under "refresh rate". This is, of course, an error on my part.

[modeless]

Yeah, I had to read that paragraph a couple of times to get it myself. I was really hoping for a 120 Hz panel because I think it could make a big difference. Of course, it's still possible it will support 120 Hz and they just haven't told us yet...