That's kinda a macrocosm for why Wayland still sucks, though. It always starts with a far-too-small scope, saying "we don't want to retread Xorg's mistakes", after which developers create 15 Competing Standards to replace Xorg functionality, and then the Wayland devs realize that if they don't put their foot down then 90% of the Linux desktop will have a subpar experience. It's a brutal, never-ending treadmill for users and developers alike.
Seems like hyperbole. In this case, there were maybe 3 competing screenshot/screen share methods. None of them were billed as standard. Without the core Wayland devs having to get involved, or even any protocol extensions needing to be made, all of the major desktop environments and even wlroots standardized on a single D-Bus API for the functionality. That API is now a few years old. Yeah it took a while to get adopted/implemented, and Zoom probably has higher priorities. But I do not think X would have magically made the situation better, except by having gone through the process a decade (or more?) ago.
Nobody said the X->Wayland transition would be easy or even straightforward. Only that X has key architectural issues inherent to the protocol and a clean break was needed to make further efficiency and quality gains.
As well as global keyboard shortcuts, compositing effects, efficient framebuffer rendering, xWayland functionality, configuration-agnostic multidisplay support and input polling.
I'll let you decide for yourself if that's hyperbole, but I think I'm comfortable sticking with Xorg for now.
