I think like many subcultures, people see the immediate world around them (including what they expose themselves to online) and make conclusions about what is common and what isn't.
For NLEs, some people see Avid as the only choice. Other environments, Final Cut and Premiere. It all depends on who's around you.
I work in the industry and on independent "art" films so I see multiple worlds. I sometimes have to use Avid (but hate it), sometimes use Premiere, mostly use Final Cut though. I find editors who have a choice and have had experience on all of the NLEs, choose Final Cut.
I'm currently working on a web series using Final Cut and it's such a nice experience because it's rare for something to go wrong, when it does it doesn't take long to fix it. You can get more done. Everything is so fast. Rarely crashes, never lose work when you do.

I think what Apple could do to be more used in commercial films and TV is to include internally what is now add-on third party things. AAF export, EDL export, collaboration, etc. All of these things are available so I understand Apple seeing how since relatively few people need them, those few can buy the third party add-ons. Makes sense on one level but when it comes time for a big company to buy a few hundred licenses, it adds up. When management doesn't understand that it'll save them time and money in the long run they'll just go with the lowest up front cost is and pick something else.

The launch could've been better. I think Apple was just too confident that they had a real gem on their hands that everyone is sure to love and that it would sell itself.
The folklore is that Randy Ubillos, the writer of Final Cut, was begging Steve Jobs to not cancel FCP 7 but instead include it with purchase of the FCPX. Steve wanted to cut all ties to the past. Too bad.
Glad the freak out is over mostly. It's been having a renaissance the past few years as people come back to it and are learning the magnetic timeline. Other NLEs are now trying to include some magnetic timeline aspects into their software.

I think like many things in this world, transportation, communication, etc. We will never be again at the place where there is only one NLE used by all. I think it will always be that we have several to choose from and professional editors will have to be able to switch from one to another, or more likely, the editor will just choose what they like and all NLEs will be able to collaborate with other software.

I hope the letter helps. Apple has a unique gem with this software and might have big plans for it but from the outside it's really hard to tell.

So many professional editors love FCP but then have to use Avid or Premiere for work and it's like going back in time to a 1990s software paradigm.
While all the features for collaboration that the commercial industry needs are available now either internally or with third party apps, just adding these few features as standard would help these editors use what's best.

In recent years we've seen other NLEs adopt some of the magnetic timeline aspects in their software. I don't think anybody cares that it's trackless anymore.

Follow up on my project. What I ended up doing was a mix of four different cameras.

The scene is three characters have coffee then watch a video on a portable open reel deck.
For the live action part I rented a Digital Bolex, (which was really nice.) For some pickup shots a few weeks later I used the first gen BMPCC, added some film grain and they matched very well.
For the video tape that they watch I used two cameras, one was a black and white Panasonic tube surveillance camera from the late 1970s. The other camera was a colour Sony DXC-1200. It has a Trinicon tube. (It's huge and heavy.) Both cameras were recorded onto UMatic tape.
I could've gone straight to some type of capture device but was thinking the UMatic tape might add some characteristics. Not sure if it did.

I posted some stills on my Tumblr.
https://clarknikolai.tumblr.com

I agree. It's easier to get the look of a camera by using that camera than to add plug ins.
I'm working on a period short set in the early 1970s that has a character using an old open reel portable video recorder and camera. To get the POV of that camera it was easiest to just use a camera from that time. Gives a great look without any effort. Easier than trying to make something else look like it.

Pondering here... I was reading that it has a special sensor that isn't a Bayer pattern but a pattern that has some white pixels in addition to the usual red green and blue ones. This makes me think that it might be possible for them to have a monochrome shooting mode that involves only those pixels and that might make a nicer monochrome image than just reducing the chroma on what you get from the RGB pixels.

I've thought the same things for a long time. Why they keep showing artists as flakey, hard to understand, lacking in content, etc. when they themselves are an industry full of artists and craftspeople.
One of the things that I find working in the film industry is how conservative it is and how much they feed off previous work and not by observing real life. They use stereotypes to save time when introducing characters, often basing them on characters in other movies.

The only film I've seen where artists and art were framed as being important was 1989's The Top of His Head.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098493/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1