>these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP. No, these are people who are already invested in Avid or

>these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP. No, these are people who are already invested in Avid or Adobe, who can't even accurately represent the state of FCP X (because they haven't used it enough, it seems.) >1. lack of genuinely needed features Most of the "missing" features already exist. For instance, multi cam existed before todays update, I did it with the release in October. > You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it. Once again the assertion that FCP X is lacking features that are intrinsic to editing. FCP X is the photoshop, FCP, Premiere and Avid care the Acorn examples. All of those apps are based on an old workflow that dates back to the origin of cinema, and are terrible to work with, and much slower and more difficult to edit with. But, the problem is there's a lot of people who were trained in the old ways, and because the old ways are the old ways, they feel they can say any new way must be a toy. That's what's nonsense. You comparing FCP X to Acorn is nonsense, when FCP X can do more, faster, and with more creativity than any other editing package on the market right now. Real professionals want that power. Sure, if you've got a workflow that you need to stick with you don't want to migrate yet. But to complain about the change in the workflow and ignore the fact that editing has advanced significantly, means that the complainers are either invested in a competing product, or don't actually care about creativity.