There are various issues. One of them is that FCPX doesn't suport tape decks as well. That feels more like what Apple did with USB and floppy drives: jettison tech on the way out while it was still useful in some contexts. Jobs has said many times he is only interested in technology in the ascendency, and tapes are definitely not that.
It also doesn't support a few pro workflows I don't understand (multiple camera editing, etc)... seemingly because the new interface is a radical departure. It uses a single, treelike track instead of multiple tracks, and doesn't easily map to these workflows. This to me feels like an "Innovator's Dilemma" situation: the new interface does many things overwhelmingly better, but has important regressions.
The regressions will be fixed or outweighed in time. For now (perhaps not for long) other software, including the previous version of Final Cut, compares favorably.
Multi camera editing is coming, and the tape deck stuff looks like it will be handled by a company that will do it better than Apple (although a plugin costing > 2x the program is kinda weird). The sound export stuff is a great biz opportunity for a plugin writer.
They needed to rebuild for 64-bit. This is what you get when you start over. I expect that patches and new plugins will turn it around by next year.
Lost in all this is the incredible Motion 5 at $50. Learning that and selling some templates (with decent Parameter Rigs) for Final Cut Pro X users would seem to be a nice way to make some extra cash.
The latest version of Final Cut dropped a bunch of features that are vital to pros and focused more on features that are useful advanced amateurs. Basically if you used Final Cut to edit home movies and amateur film productions then the new version is vastly improved. If on the other hand you used Final Cut to earn a living editing feature length movies and television productions, then the new version is a bit of a complete disaster. I guess Apple figured that there wasn't enough money in the pro market, and decided to double down on the enthusiast and advanced amateur market.
... and focused more on features that are useful advanced amateurs
I actually don't think this is quite right. I'll quote Gary Adcock's Macworld review:
"Most of the features introduced in FCP X are welcome and badly needed. Some are long overdue. Still, others are positively jarring and require a change in mindset to appreciate."
There is no doubt that Apple made it unusable for high-end pros (for the time being, at least) but I feel they also added many things that high-end pros would have really appreciated, had they been able to use it seriously. So it's not quite as simple as "amatueurs only" (even if you're talking about advanced amateurs.)
That also explains why professionals were going absolutly wild at that National Association Of Broadcasters event where Apple demoed Final Cut Pro X for the first time.
They liked the new features and interface changes they saw, they liked the complete rewrite (64 bit, much faster, background rendering) and, most importantly, they didn't know which features would be missing.
They should have done a graceful transition, i.e. they should have continued to support and sell FCP7 while also testing the waters with FCPX. This would have also allowed them to frame the product differently: “FCPX is the future and already has nearly everything professionals need to edit videos. If it doesn’t yet have a feature you need you can continue using FCP7 while we work as fast as we can on adding those features.”
If it doesn’t yet have a feature you need you can continue using FCP7
Except, apparently, you can't buy FCP7 any more (at least that's what I've heard from one guy I know in the industry). Which means that if you're a Final Cut Pro house and need to hire more staff, I guess you're kind of stuck going the pirate route for getting editing software for your new employees.
It also doesn't support a few pro workflows I don't understand (multiple camera editing, etc)... seemingly because the new interface is a radical departure. It uses a single, treelike track instead of multiple tracks, and doesn't easily map to these workflows. This to me feels like an "Innovator's Dilemma" situation: the new interface does many things overwhelmingly better, but has important regressions.
The regressions will be fixed or outweighed in time. For now (perhaps not for long) other software, including the previous version of Final Cut, compares favorably.