digibud: We could argue all day about "who" is a "pro," or "what" makes one tool more "professional" than the next. (I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. And I'm supposedly a "professional" who's worked 20-plus years in broadcasting.)
But, I will say this: Recently, I toured through an Internet company in Silicon Valley. I paused next to an unkempt 20-something kid editing a sophomoric ("gross-out") video for a YouTube channel. He was cutting on FCPX. And, I was sure, in his lifetime, he has probably never seen a single frame of video through "Avid" or "Premiere" (not to mention the clunky CMX I used on years ago.)
I chuckled. But, my host (the kid's boss) sensed my haughty disdain and said, "Go ahead and laugh. That 'kid' gets several hundred thousand views every week. Last year he made about $200,000 dollars in subscription fees and advertising revenue." (which, I was told, was only a "cut" of what the Internet company made off those same videos.)
I suddenly realized that "kid" is every bit a "professional."
It made me think how Apple has realized there is a whole new generation who will edit video for new platforms--for media delivery systems that don't even exist yet. It made me think how "professional" is a relative term. Are "professionals" those few tens of thousands of people who edit feature films, television shows, commercials, news programs and corporate videos, using expensive post-production gear and software? Sure. But could "professional" ALSO be those millions of people all over the world who will make a living (as a "profession") delivering content to HUNDREDS of millions of viewers / consumers? So... Perhaps Apple realized this when they developed a low-cost, user-friendly, versatile application called "Final Cut Pro X." But, I could be wrong.