Wow, some people like to argue. I'll reiterate what I said originally: (a) remote desktop is not what I want and not what a lot of people currently using X want, and (b) I've seen nothing to suggest that Wayland is not capable of supporting remote display.
Other than that a few notes:
On my Ubuntu system remote desktop is trivial: no need to install anything (it's part of the base system). I select the "Desktop Sharing" applet and enable it, then when I need to connect from a remote system I use the "Remote Desktop Client", enter the server name and my password, and it just works. I have no problem believing the Windows implementation of remote desktop is better than X's. However, X's remote display model is what I want, and in my experience, Windows doesn't have the same flexibility. However, even that is beside the point: maybe Windows is better and more feature-ful than X in every possible way. It makes absolutely no difference to me, since I don't use it. What I care about is what features Wayland has, compared to X.
Comparing the number of people who use remote desktop on Windows to those using remote display in X is useless. We're talking about Wayland and X. The only meaningful statistic is how many X users who use non-local display operations want remote display, vs. remote desktop. I can assure you that far more than 1% of X users would be very upset to lose remote display and have only remote desktop.
X's remote display was designed to work on a per-application basis. It was not designed to remote an entire desktop. Dismissing X's "vaunted network transparency" because it doesn't do what it was never designed to do is silly. X _is_ network transparent. You may say that the per-application design of the 1980's is not sufficient for all use-cases in 2013. Fine. What _I'm_ saying is that the use-cases X _was_ designed for are still legitimate and still matter to many people using X, and shouldn't be forgotten.
For the remote desktop fans, I do wonder how you manage it? My display at work is 3840x1080, and I have 8 workspaces of that size. My display at home is 1680x1050. My display on my laptop is 1280x960. How in the world does anyone get anything done trying to use a 3840x1080 remote desktop on these smaller displays? How do you manage switching workspaces inside the remote desktop, vs. switching workspaces on your local desktop? This is a serious question. I've never been able to be even close to productive with remote desktop and I can't figure out how it's supposed to work. It just seems SO limiting and SO confining, to not be able to have application windows that fit on my physical display, can be resized, moved to different workspaces, etc.