>1. lack of genuinely needed features Features that they were told would be in future updates...they abandoned FCP because it was so different, otherwise they

>1. lack of genuinely needed features Features that they were told would be in future updates...they abandoned FCP because it was so different, otherwise they would have waited (and many have waited). >2. fear about the place of "pro" This fear is not unfounded, see Shake. But the idea that because FCPX looks similar to iMovie it's not professional is BS, the same thing that crops up with any new, inexpensive product (I've lived through it with DV, HDV, DSLRs, FCP 1, Premiere, Color, Nuke, and too many others to name). For me, the only feature missing from FCPX is OMF export, which is handled by a third party. Out of all the commercials I've made in the past 12 months (roughly 24 national spots), all could have been handled with FCPX without any foreseeable problems (all the spots had digital delivery so no need for tape layoffs). Same goes for the features I've handled in the past year (2). Final Cut made inroads in commercials and indie films long before the big features (and most of the FCP editing on TV is low budget reality tv shows, who were also ahead of the curve). And it's always lacked features, it was my job to get around what it lacked (and it's been very lucrative). While there was always a learning curve going from Avid to FCP, it was a relative small one that could be overcome in a day or two of intense editing. The learning curve for FCPX, even for experienced FCP users is much greater (and the kicking and screaming that editors displayed when having to move to earlier versions of FCP was bad enough). Just like before, it will be early adopters that push FCPX. But don't discount the power of a creative director coming to a post house with an FCPX project that he wants finished. The last 5 years of my career has been that storyline. Someone will call me and pay me good money to set it up and babysit the project. And considering a campaign with a 30 second spot is typically budgeted at 3million plus, it's worth spending the money to make the creative happy. >they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras Very few editors deal with tv stations or juggling 30 cameras (and FCPs multi-cam has always been mediocre, if you have to deal with more than 3 cameras you're better off using Avid). Most big budget editors edit. Dealing with TV stations, delivery specs, or anything technical is left to assistants, conform artists, finishing editors, flame artists, hell even producers typically deal with that more than editors. And I don't see anything wrong with Acorn if it serves the purpose. Photoshop is overkill for most users, even many pro users. What is professional is what can get the job done well.