Fred, I honestly think the debate goes nowhere.
You use Avid MC (and other tools) for a good reason (due to the requirements of your work). But for some FCX delivers all they need. That's fine - no reason to convince others to use "better" tools (what for, if FCX does the job for them?).
Me, I agree with almost everything you say. 80% of my video-work is broadcasted. That's quite easy. You start in broadcast standards and you output to broadcast standards (of course you need some kind of offline/online workflow, the option to export EDLs and especially the option to assign real tracks and OMF export, real video output to class-1 broadcast monitors... etc.). 15% of my work is screened at events (trade shows or so). The workflow is actually the same. 5% of my work is for web presentation and these 5% are a real PITA as you have to find something that works on MAC and on Windows in at least a "decent" reproduction of gamma, colors and shutter-free playback. It's absolutely unclear to me how you would handle this in FCX... but so be it. I don't use it anyway.
For professional standards everything is really quite simple (as you can expect professional equipment on the recipient- resp. client-side)... as long as you work in a professional environment. But the latter clearly doesn't apply to FCX. So the deabte is actually irrelevant.
I always wondered about statements like "FCP owns the editing world" here on the forum. Here in Germany all major production houses use Avid. Only some promo and trailer departments (producing short films of 1-2 minutes or just 10'' or 20'' films) use FCP. My phone list contains at least 20 Avid Editors. But no explicit FCP editor (2 or 3 of the Avid editors also edit on FCP... but only if they are forced to do so). I've always refused to edit tv shows on FCP (I did twice and it was actually a nightmare). Simply too cumbersome, too nervous... too slow. Above all: too insecure (when working with heavy deadlines). So for me FCP always has been half-professional at most. FCX is 100% unprofessional. So what ...
I agree with all your lines without exception and understand that my post apparently sort of leaded nowhere. But indeed I was trying to be constructive and not just convinced to used "better" NLE. Sorry if I couldn't transmit correctly the idea I wanted to express.
I'll be more explicit here because I do think that the debate is not that much a dead end.
Resuming, my post wanted to say: invest in a solution where you can grow at any time, even if the needs are today basics, and any time can be tomorrow.
Here in Spain, and for what I've heard of some collegues in France too, the current situation is simple: deadlines are shortened, volume of work is more fragmented and unpredictable, and much more is asked for the same costs.
The first thing I've noticed compared to let's say 3 or 4 years, is that we have much less time.
Then the photographers. That's important. Motion have irrupted in the stills workflow and really what was yesterday photography is now a mess. Stills, motion, paper, web, broadcast...whatever. The demand is real and each time the frontiers are unclear and it's going to be more and more like that.
I've also seen a change in the AD generations. The new generation has a completly different position when they contract a photographer, the reality is that they contract an image maker. They want a studio that can work stills AND motion with the costs of stills alone 10 years ago.
The Dinausors here, the big boys of the photographic scene who actually didn't embrassed motion are working less and less, no mather their talent and reputation. That's the (sad or not) reality.
In my experience, we also thought at first that a simple NLE would do the job. Why do we need more if we are just photographers who's motion assignements are fews and really basics? But then in practise, it didn't worked that way. Very fast and unpredictable, the needs appear, and then it's the rush.
In the studio, the boss can not have a fixed team as big as before because of the crisis and delegate became an obligation. Also, deadlines are very short so in the end, even if you're not Hollywood, you need a stable, reliable fast platform to stay competitive and grow.
If the software does not allow you to grow at any time, (not maybe if tomorrow when possibly) it is a real problem.
Flexibility within stability is the today's grail. As diving into FCPX is a completly new learning curve from almost zero, the question falls on the table by itself...are there better alternatives in the market even for a basic workflow? IMO, the answer is yes and triple yes! I think that this FCPX is in a land of no where. I might be wrong but that's really my feeling.
Again, you might not want and need an overkill platform today, but what I've been through is that tomorrow's needs come very fast, the game can change in a question of days, and in a question of days you're not preapared for a new workflow.
The idea I've read here that: if tomorrow I need more power FC(P)X can't cover, I'll change software and that's it...yes, but I might live in another planet because honestly, we don't have time to play with uncertain possible solutions. All pros I'm seeing here are under harsh pressure to maintain their clients and grow or at least, not sink
They have less free time (in fact no free time at all) to play with a learning curve that could lead to nowhere. I have much less free time than 3 years ago and couldn't afford putting myself in a learning curve from sratch without being sure I'm walking on solid terrain. It's to the point that most of the photographers I know here have probs with their wifes because their private life has been reduced to a minimum.
If wifes work in the business they will understand but most of them don't.
anyway, wifes are not the topic.
Then, from what I said above, what I really don't get it is this: someone might not need Media Composer. Fine and understandble. But then look at the offers, for ex Edius Neo3, an entry cheap version of Edius 6. Well, Neo3 is already a reliable platform and already more featured than FCex and if you need to grow, you switch at anytime to the pro NLE, but your learning curve is not dead, you'll find a similar workflow. Same with Avid, same with Adobe.
The thing is that the money to spend to reach a professional workflow is very little. FCX costs 250, but MC if you come from FC costs 800. It is just 550 euros to obtain a rock solid software. The cost of a point-and-shoot minicam. I would understand if we where tal˝king about thousands and thousands of euros, but the reality is that softwares are cheaper and cheaper. You might not need the power of those, but when you need it, it's there. No need to relearn anything but just going deeper in what's already there.