One of the toughest decisions Apple has made time and time again is to rewrite already successful software. Rewrites are avoided by most other companies because: a) they require a ton of work and time, b) will temporarily or permanently remove or change some feature that will inevitably piss off some vocal longtime users, and c) are hard to justify in a business where customers will plunk down the same amount of money for a slightly kludgier update as long as a few user facing features are involved.

So why does Apple rewrite code? Because doing so creates a new foundation where an application can thrive on the newest technology without being dragged down by irrelevant legacy code. If successful, these rewritten apps shine when compared to the competition and Apple sells more computers.

The user tradeoff for Apple rewritten apps is pretty simple: Suffer through a few versions with missing features in the short term and get greater performance, stability, and modern underpinnings that enable vastly more and better features in the long term. The problem is peoples’ foresight and hindsight are short. People get up in arms whenever a rewrite emerges because they lose key features and don’t foresee those features returning despite a track record that suggests otherwise.

Could Apple continue to keep important features out of Final Cut X and in doing so sacrifice the professional market for a less lucrative prosumer one? Possible, but unlikely.