I think the people who would really appreciate this will be amateur wildlife photographers and birders, once they release a decent telephoto. A 300mm lens would be 810mm equivalent! But without the option of a long telephoto lenses, I don't see much advantage over a fixed lens camera. I understand the logic behind the small sensor. As sensors get better and more sensitive, you can either offer ever increasing ISO, or offer images with similar noise characteristics to earlier APS sensors but at a fraction of the size.
Our brains are very clever; we can watch a black and white movie and interpret it as if it were colour (i.e., we don't think of people as having grey faces). Similarly, we can watch a 2D movie and interpret it as 3D. But we cope better with missing information than wrong information. Watching black and white is OK, but watching something with the wrong colours is not. Just shift the hue setting on a software movie player. Grey faces are OK, but purple or green won't work. Similarly, 2D is better than wrong 3D and 3D is only right when the viewer's angle of view is the same as that of the camera (with appropriate image separation). Most people sit too far back from a TV, so will see everything in miniature. Directors will have to sacrifice the flexibility of wide angle and telephoto zoom shots and shoot everything with a standard lens. If they need to get close to the action they'll have to move the cameras in. So 3D is great if you get it right, otherwise forget it.