If I can try to offer a (hopefully) unbiased two cents from an actual professional video editor in "the industry" in LA, my experience is this:
Most editors do not use FCPX. Many heard about all the drama from the initial launch and stayed away, many work in a post production facility (or part of a workflow) that FCPX doesn't jive well with and therefore they don't bother. That being said, this is the reality now, in 2014. But to end the conversation here is very short sighted.
I use FCPX and have been using it from June 2011. Initially I used it alongside FCP7 but now I use it exclusively. There are several projects that I have to send out to post sound / color who work in workflows other than FCPX and I have no limitations in doing that. I use X to 7 and simply convert my completed edits to FCP7 and then export an XML or EDL or OMF from there. I tie it all up in a nice zipped folder with a copy of the 7 project file, the X library, and any other reference assets. I've been doing this for years now, with no hiccup. It takes about an extra 15 mins once I have locked picture. If post color is using DaVinci I don't even have to do that I just send the XML straight from X.
There have been national commercials for Google, Verizon, Skechers, Taco Bell, and projects for Lady Gaga and other top bands that I have personally edited on FCPX so I only have those credits and about 200 lesser known client videos that have been done in X. Professional?? I dunno you be the judge. I hate hearing all this talk about "professional" software though bc everyone's definition of that word is so subjective and so varied. X allows me to work in a way that I prefer and that's why I use it. I think premiere and avid are fine software, and I don't bash them simply because I don't prefer them. Even though I use and love X, I still wouldn't be so simple-minded to think that it's widely used within the (niche) community of pro video editors... It isn't. And that's ok. Here's why...
Because all the younger generation of "not pros" that are just dipping their toes in the world of video editing now, are going to be the same people in 20 years that are vying for the more prestigious edit jobs, and it's my (hopefully humble enough) opinion that THIS is who apple has it's crosshairs aimed at with the retooling of FCPX. The kids. When FCPX was first launched I took a long look at not only the workflow nuances of how apple's editor differed from adobes and avids, but also how the software underpinnings differed - from a code and framework perspective. I then evaluated which company I thought would have the better software in 5, 10, and subsequent years. It was my personal opinion that while adobe and avids offerings were more wise for editing in an "industry compliant" way now, the current way common NLEs work DID/DOES in fact need a rethinking if it's going to run in any efficient way in 5+ years. (Notice I said "efficient" way, meaning not to imply that in 5 years premiere won't work... But rather that hardware and software synergy if you will, will require fresh code in order to maximize hardware abilities). That conclusion, combined with my ability to work in X and use a handful of inexpensive plugins to assimilate with a non-X-friendly "industry" is the reason why I use X. That decision is only corroborated more and more with every person who sees my work then finds out it was done in X, especially if they're near my edit station and I show them how I work in the app. But again, this is my experience and certainly isn't applicable for every editor everywhere.
But really, just use what makes sense in your post workflow. That is all.
