I don't understand why we need another competing standard for such a small difference. Given how small the difference is, I'm in favor for whichever one is more common to avoid black bars below media or other ill-fitting content. As far as I can tell, 16:9 is much more common so I am happy to stick with that on any device and resolution.
I often have two editors in vertical columns side by side while I work, and it's nice to have a wider screen. Unfortunately with 16:10, they don't usually add to the vertical resolution but rather subtract from the horizontal resolution (2880x1800 16:10 versus 3200x1800 16:9).
What about 1920x1080 (16:9) vs 1920x1200 (16:10) and 2560x1440 (16:9) vs 2560x1600 (16:10)? I have seen it as the norm that height gets added rather than width subtracted.
An extra few percent is not going to help significantly, but it will create a noticeable box around media. So a small upside with a (for you) just as small downside.
If we want taller screens, then we should use 16:12 or so. If 16:10 is the perfect ratio and 16:9 is just off, then I honestly don't think it can be bad enough to justify the cost of change, though I am of course willing to be convinced by research.
I've no problem with that, I still use 3 5:4 panels at the office. But so far 16:10 was the best that you can get for desktop machines at the very least.
