These points made above are logical and reasonable.
I must point out, however, that application developers are not resisting a new thing. Nor are they refusing to adapt to the new because they do not want to have to do the work. If they did not want to have to do the work, they would not be developers doing all the work that they have done and continue to do so far.
The underlying issue is more complex: Wayland has fundamental flaws and these flaws lead to breakage and it is for this reason that the application developers push back.
Before proceeding: I have long been a supporter of Wayland due to its improvements in speed and performance. I like that it cuts out the middle processes and simplifies the communication between kernel and hardware without a server in between which is in the nature of FOSS.
It is important to remember that just because something is newer does not mean that it is good. It does not automatically mean that it is improved.
One of the reasons given in favor of Wayland is security, which I address here.
Let's expand on that a bit:
This is also one of Waylands biggest flaws. Containerizing it leads to app breakage for a very large number of applications out there including many dealing with graphics. Graphical applications hold the lions share of user preferred applications.
The very argument for Wayland - cutting out the middle processes to simplify the process - backfires. It requires direct access to graphics hardware and containerization abstracts hardware access, complicating the interaction between the application and the underlying graphics system resulting in performance degradation or graphical glitches.
Running applications in Wayland can result in many applications being unable to provide the features and functions that they currently offer. Lacking a communication server, this becomes an issue of replacing infrastructure within the apps. In time, with learning and development, this may be overcome, but it is a lot (too much, even) to ask of app developers.
As you can see, what makes the argument for Wayland being desirable is also its Achilles Heel. Had Wayland been designed differently from the outset, things might have gone differently. Interestingly, we can say this about X11, as well.
It truly is a shame. Because when Wayland works, it works very well. But where it falls down, it falls down too hard and it drags other applications and developers down with it.
Which drags the users along behind them, kicking and screaming.
Where the obligation lies is on the Wayland developers. Not on everyone else.
It is as true for them as it is for us: It is not everyone elses obligation to adapt to you and this lesson in honor and integrity is taught to us throughout our lives.
Wayland was a great idea with a great approach. Sadly, it hasn't worked out because the removal of a complexity in hopes of creating simplicity in fact created greater complexity. This happens, sometimes. That's physics. Emergence and Entropy will do what they do, despite our most valiant efforts. As Kenny Rogers said;
You've got to know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
know when to run.
