(Let's leave aside the fact that Nokia designed a beautiful mobile interface built on X, in-plane entertainment systems have been running on Linux and X for over a decade, and X servers were historically implemented on 286 hardware for use as dedicated X terminals.)
What I can say is Wayland was developed and promoted with a GNOME developer mentality, which is a combination of:
* CADT (jwz dot org slash doc slash cadt dot html)
* What you're using sucks! Here, adopt my shiny new thing to make your environment not suck! (literally dates back to GNOME's inception, see: https://qodsec.blogspot.com/2004/06/unix-lets-make-unix-not-... )
* We've built a solution for what we have determined to be the common use case. Why should we care about your obscure, niche use case that absolutely nobody (that matters) uses?
With a heaping side of "it's from Red Hat, so it's the standard" and "it's open source so you don't have the right to criticize". Basically, what happens when young, eager developers are given the opportunity to implement and potentially standardize core desktop features (and thus build what they think is "a better Windows" or "a better Mac") but don't have the advantage of experience of previous software designs in the Unix/Linux workstation space and their benefits and drawbacks.
If people keep staying on X11, I suspect that the next phase will be "refusal to adopt Wayland is a strong indicator of racism/misogyny/homophobia/transphobia".
Whatever good things Wayland's been up to, it's been historically dismissive if not outright hostile to backward compatibility and integration, and that's not acceptable. I keep hearing, well it's what the old X people want, and I don't care.
Similarly, don't come with the goofy "It's open source so you don't have the right to criticize." False false false. That wrongly implies it's a bunch of plucky happy-go-lucky volunteers doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Nope. It's companies with agendas and they need to do better.