According to Lindy's Law this means I'll be ready to switch to Wayland no sooner than 2065.
By that timeline, we’re only a decade from Wayland’s successor protocol being released. It may, optimistically, have had five entire years of being the unequivocal standard by then!
In contrast Wayland is mature enough that ChromeOS decided to go all-in on Wayland, and Microsoft uses it too, for WSL2.
ChromeOS has been using Wayland in Crostini and ChromeOS's Android emulator for years, but only in the last year or so have versions of the OS rolled out to ordinary users that use Wayland also for the main UI (browser and task bar and such). Till then ChromeOS used a hand-rolled graphics system for that.
Also Wayland was embraced many years ago by makers of graphical user interfaces for cars.
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.