Six months after the launch of Final Cut Pro X (FCPX), Apple's major overhaul to its professional video editing software Final Cut Pro, video pros find themselves increasingly looking at other software options. The new version of Final Cut Pro was controversial—there were significant changes to the Final Cut interface, a plethora of editing features were taken away, and worst of all, Final Cut Pro X was rendered unable to import projects from previous versions of the software. For video editors and producers with years of work using Final Cut Pro, the launch of Final Cut Pro X made it seem like Apple no longer cared for its market of creative professionals.

Is that still the case now, half a year later? TV production company Bunim/Murray recently brought the issue back into the public consciousness by announcing that it was switching from Final Cut Pro to Avid, noting that the company needed "a partner who would understand our long-term needs."

As it turns out, the reaction to Bunim/Murray's announcement from creative pros was, "took them long enough." We spoke to a handful of professionals who work in the video production industry to see how they're feeling now that the dust has settled, and the general consensus appears to be "not good."

Chicken versus the egg

Which came first: Apple's creative pro market shrinking, which might have led to dramatic changes in Final Cut Pro; or Apple's cavalier attitude toward legacy features, which might have frightened video editors? According to the professionals we spoke to, there was already signs of an industry shift to Avid before FCPX came along, but Apple still had a very loyal and dedicated user base that it's now turning away from.

"The perception here is that Apple is more concerned with selling iPads and iPhones than they are with the people who have stuck with them since the 90's, the professional editors and VFX people," said Jude Mull, who works at a post-production facility in Hollywood that processes and digitizes some of your favorite TV shows.

Mull explained that this perception was already there when FCPX was announced, but has only increased since then due to Apple's aggressive attempt to cut and switch up its features. For example, when editing video for TV shows, editors will put together a final Edit Decision List (EDL) with data that essentially tells the post production facility which scenes to keep or cut. "Why Apple decided to do away with EDLs is beyond me. This makes me think they aren't targeting the professional market," Mull told Ars. "When I read Final Cut Pro X didn't have the ability to generate an EDL I figured Apple is targeting a different audience, the Tweeners, people with a little $, time and creativity, the Indie crowd. This looks stupid to even read, so again, kind of baffled."

Mull also pointed out another sore spot among professionals: FCPX no longer allows output to tape. "While ideally the industry is trending towards tapeless, we still live in a world where the Video Assembled Masters and Color Corrected Masters are played out to HD tape formats, generally HDSR and D5. This is a basic function and removing this, while possibly forward thinking with regards to tapeless workflow, is totally counterproductive within the reality of today, that most everybody still goes to tape," he said.

This, combined with the aforementioned inability to import legacy projects, are complete dealbreakers for those who work in the video production industry. Noted production systems and workflow consultant Jon Alper compared Apple's decisions to cut things like tape support and legacy products to the launch of the iMac—that is, the company wanted older formats to be dead (like the floppy drive that never made it into the iMac) and therefore simply got rid of them, demanding the rest of the industry to catch up.

"Not supporting tape-based workflow is forward looking but they 'iMac-ed' it.'" They wanted it to be dead," Alper told Ars. "This was fine for the old Bondi Blue iMac when the buyers of those tools didn't generally have massive investments in Serial, ADB and SCSI peripherals. It's not fine when production houses own and rely on hundreds of thousands (or many millions) [of dollars] in decks, cameras and other gear."

Another filmmaker in Los Angeles, Seth Hancock, agreed that even if FCPX had more of the features that video editors want, the fact that it's so different from previous versions of Final Cut Pro would still push the industry towards the competition.

"If we are taking the time to retrain people for a brand new software—which is what FCPX is—then we might as well use tools that are more industry standards here in L.A. like Avid and, now, Premiere Pro," Hancock told Ars. "There are too many choices and options for better, more professional options that keep us working and employable here in L.A. What's sad is that Apple was destroying Avid and really cutting into their revenue and market share. Now Avid, by default, is going to revert back the to industry standard."

The Mac Pro plays a part, too

The release of FCPX may be the catalyst for driving away industry professionals, but it's not the only contributor to the problem. The fact that the Mac Pro seems to be on Apple's back burner is making professional users nervous and forcing them to begin looking at other—non-Mac—hardware solutions to ensure their future employability.

"This comes at a bad time. Mac Pro is long in the tooth and pundits speculate and seemingly seem to relish encouraging its demise because they can write and function entirely on a MacBook Air and do the FCP tutorials too," Alper said. "Pundits, I might add, who have never dealt with managing seven [years] worth of Antiques Roadshow being repackaged and encoded for the Web. Pundits who have never had 3.5TB single projects."

And it's not just Hollywood feeling that way. Ryan Poirier, who works in the video production department of one of the largest public school districts in the US, agreed that regular updates to the Mac Pro are key in maintaining confidence among the professional crowd.

"Many folks in the industry have the perspective that Apple is willing to cut out the legs from under professionals without warning. And that can make project leads weary of putting full faith into a entire workflow, which goes well beyond the actual editing software," Poirier told Ars. "The simple question of the survival of the features a Mac Pro provides can push workflow managers to migrate over to Windows, where Avid and Adobe can be installed. Professionals must be able count on lasting support for a few years at a time. If there are any doubts, about where the roadmap leads, it's simply not worth the risk of taking that leap of faith. Post-production houses simply can't afford to be caught off guard."

With the current iteration of the Mac Pro about to turn 18 months old—and even at the time of that update, the previous version was nearly two years old—these users are becoming increasingly jaded about Apple's commitment to the pro market. And because Apple's Final Cut products only work on the Mac, the Mac Pro is a big part of the equation when it comes to production houses choosing which software to use.

FCPX ain't all bad

Despite the amount of hatorade being dumped on FCPX by the professional crowd, not everything about it is sour.

"My personal view on FCP X is that it's a brilliant program, provided the user can essentially forget everything they've learned from using the previous Final Cut Pro/ Studio applications and go into it with an open mind. Don't be quick to judge a book by its cover, or give in to all the negative hype," Poirier told Ars. "I may be more optimistic then others by nature, but after learning FCPX in it's current state, I'm more excited about future potential of the application then I am concerned with it's current shortfalls. "

Alper agreed. "There's a lot more 'right' about it than Apple gets credit for," Alper said. "Realtime processing, of course, but I actually think the "metadata" model for media management is, long term, the much better model." In a blog post he wrote after FCPX's release, he went into more detail as to why he believes these elements will help videographers create better products, adding, "These changes will revolutionize video editing."

Alper also took special exception to repeated complaints that the new version of Final Cut Pro looks too much like iMovie, noting that he believes there's a certain level of "pro tools machismo" in the industry that opposes any kind of change that might make it seem easier to do their jobs. "It is a completely valid concern that a tool would be ‘dumbed down’ to make integration into pro workflows a problem or professional level functionality either removed or so deeply hidden as to be useless," he wrote on his blog. "It’s utterly laughable to be worried that a tool you learned with difficulty will now be easier for others to master."

Everyone we spoke to agreed that Apple would have a much better standing among professional users if the company would just acknowledge them a little more and act like their concerns are being listened to. "Apple needs to be a little more open with third parties about how they plan to improve FCP over time. They need to enable those third parties to feel that when FCP improves, they can make more money selling their products," Alper said.

"What Apple could do would be to make it known that they intend to keep the pro market viable is let the pros know you still care!" Mull added. "As it is, everything seems lukewarm."