Even before I learned about IS in the way "Dan/Ark/Mike/SamChin/etc.." practice it, I experienced a difference not only in the understanding of the term Ki/ki/qi but also in the practical "use" of the phenomenon, a difference between people stemming from the Shin shin toitsu do of Tohei sensei and people stemming from chinese arts.
The "chinese" usage of the word was much more nuanced, differentiated. And regarding the "practice of qi" it was much more concrete, definite.
(This last way of understanding and "using" ki was what shaped my personal practice more than the other. And I think that was helpfull to stumble into Dan's way of internal training. For it does fit to what I learned "around" Tissier or "near" Endo or with my teacher here and his a step further on that way.)
I am really not sure, wether my personal experiences are to generalize. But when talking with friends, who do Ki-Aikido, about "ki" we often get to a point where we realize that what we call "ki" is something different. One time I even had to accept the answer that what is called "qi" in my books about qi gong is something fundamentally different from what is called "Ki" in Toheis work. Also it is clear for my friends that the "one point" is clearly not the seika tanden. For the one point can be outside of teh body. e.g. when doing falls. The seika tanden on the other hand has to be inside of the body.
Again: I don't know how my experiences fit to yours.
But what do you think: Is it possible that we don't only talk about different ways to "deal with" Ki/ki/qi, but that we understand this phenomenon itself in a fundamentally different way?
Tohei's ki is no different than the Chinese qi - the difference lies in the misunderstanding of some of those that practice each.
My initial Aikido background is KI- Society and I see them as the same - however, not all applications of the use of ki are the same - there are medical applications and martial applications - and even in those subsets, there are variances; as in Ueshiba and Tohei, both used ki in their IS/IP development, but not in the same way.