the problem is the disingenous train of thought that goes from making a new linux distribution (that probably only some ten's users people in the world, including the project founder and his friends, will ever use), to adoption by oem's and consequently, $$$
these guys forget or dont know that for an OS to be preinstalled on OEM machine it must be
- convenient (how much does it cost to implement it? can it be made as a single system image to be deployed on millons of machines of varying hw configuration, at little to no added cost at the manufacturing process level? )
- market effective: if a "de facto standard" os has a userbase of, say, 90% of the desktop segment, and i make desktops, i can assume a 90% chance for a possible buyer for my pc's to in turn want the "industry standard" OS - thus preinstallating it gives me a 90% confidence i will actually cater to the market's needs with a single product
even more so if said os is not a fragmented platform but rather a unified self compatible one, if it ' s an easier to use and a more consistent desktop than alternative Os's, if most if not all industry recognized applications are available for it anyway
now, as much as gnu linux is a niche as far as the desktop is concerned, some distributions actually have a chance to be oem-preinstalled, because they are the most relevant in the whole linux ecosystem and thus have a kind of industry recognition outside that niche
but a fork (thus a subset of the userbase) of an already geeky one (thus a niche of the niche)?
not to mention the second disingenous train of thought according to which wayland is what will make a distribution perfect ad easy to use ... disregarding the fact that there's a heap of stuff the user will notice (and to intervene on to improve the UX) before a core, under the hood component such as a wayland compositor (with the wayland protocol not perfect yet, either - minimize, anyone?)