Indirect opinion of Apple Final Cut Pro, X-criticism

For an article in The New York Times, the manufacturer of various criticisms, which are by disgruntled Final Cut Pro users above, taken a position - but some should therefore still go smoothly ( among others. projects pass, P2 file import, frame rates and sizes define themselves), others indirectly, at least, or different than before (reconnect for example. now automatic), while some want as already added known fact (Multi-Camera Editing, RED Support via plug-in, more control over audio tracks). What (according to Apple) is actually missing, as is EDL, AAF, OMF export or tape output or will be available via third party. For further details see link to NYT As the comments to the article (by the way, in response to negative comments about a positive Review The software was created) are found in many of the malcontents - most of them as it seems from the broadcast area, or cut larger houses - these answers are still dissatisfied, the workarounds they occur mostly inadequate or inconvenient. Also, the complete over-dumping overboard of superannuated from Apple&s perspective on concepts nachwievor encounters incomprehension. Something unnecessary confusion seems to cause the fact that the responsible editor (as opposed to the commentators), of course, has no professional experience as an editor, and therefore some questions and criticisms (or the responses from Apple) can not understand completely ("ALL of my Information in this post came from Apple. As I & ve said, I am not a professional video editor. So I collected the gripes of many, many editors who had blogged or written to me about the deficiencies, and asked Apple to address each one. I have confirmed everything that was in my power to confirm "). Respect an interesting choice of Apple, this discussion (indirectly) calculated with the known technology columnist for the NY Times, David Pogue to lead (and not in one of the subject leaves) ...