I start by saying "I love Aperture" despite some quirky things I do not even want to mention. I have been using it since v1.0 and my library is now over 100GB. And Aperture manages reasonably well. However, Aperture is a single user product, with no multi-user or collaborative capabilities to speak of. This is the Achilles heel of Apple. They have a lack in systems software experience which shows in the lack of support for storing your library on a fast server, and have master->version locking to allow for access to the library from multiple workstations. This article implies cooperative use, of a group of judges. Well they better be in one room using the system otherwise it would be pretty hard to collaborate and come to some meaningful conclusion. Therefore I am taking some offense at this article as it paints a slant picture of reality.

I start by saying "I love Aperture" despite some quirky things I do not even want to mention. I have been using it since v1.0 and my library is now over 100GB, and still decently manageable.
However, this article implies to the casual reader that it is a multi-user system unless the committee of judges consisted of 1 person I do not see how you can run an effective rating system on it, without all being in the same room. I believe Aperture's biggest missing component is to be able to store the library on a fast server and lock at master->version level. Here Apple again is showing its infancy in strong systems software, and I wish they would grow up in that area as well. They are miles ahead of anyone else in UI design, but good old fashion multi-user/access to stuff is a lonely child in Cupertino.