The consensus from many high-profile non-Ubuntu developers was that their criticisms of Wayland reflected worse on Ubuntu than Wayland. They did say vaguely that Wayland didn't suit their purposes, but none of the specifics they provided turned out to be valid, and some of their criticism included alluding to potential security issues in Wayland that never existed.
Their initial comments for why Wayland didn't suit their purposes were misguided and incorrect, and Wayland supported all of the features they said it wouldn't.
Ignorance isn't really FUD, but both their incorrect comments and their want to do their own thing hurt Wayland a lot.
