Apple didn't reject X, they acquired NeXT, which much earlier chose Display Postscript over X11 since Jobs was big on wysiwyg. The paperless office, promised decades ago, is finally here and with that wysiwyg a demand of the past. X had many competitors and outlived them all.

There is an Slashdot comment written in 2003 by Mike Paquete, who was working on graphics for the Mac, titled "Why Apple didn't use X for the window system":

https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75257&cid=67...

Note that the title of the comment implies that Apple had the option of incorporating X into OS X, as do these next 2 quotes:

"The window system . . . is graphics model agnostic, working equally well with QuickDraw, OpenGL, the Quartz drawing engine, X11"

(The final sentence) "Been there, evaluated that," where "that" is a reference to X11. (If X11 was not ever an option for OS X, there would be no need for an Apple engineer like Paquete to evaluate it.)

Although it makes points similar to the point you make (namely, some at NeXT or at Apple considered it important for hardcopy to look like it did on screen), Paquete's comment gives many other reasons that have nothing to do with hardcopy for why X was lacking for Apple's purposes.

To summarize, Apple rejected X back in the 1990s for many reasons, most of which cannot be dismissed as demands from the past.

I salute your ability to discuss this topic irreligiously and from a place of knowledge.