What type of user is the happiest with Aperture?

Question

No I don't mean pro versus amateur as I have seen the extremes in both cases.
I use Bridge/ACR/CS2 as my exlusive workflow. While I find the interface of Aperture to be slicker than Bridge, what is under the hood is the most important. RAW-Bridge-ACR-CS2-output(print and file from CS2)-Bridge(management) is fast, predictable, flows very well, and allows me a wide range of control over output.
I never liked iPhoto, and after using Aperture, I dislike it for the same reasons that I don't like iPhoto.
I see Aperture as the following: since RAW-Aperture-ACR/CS2-output(from CS2)-Aperture does not work as Aperture has no way of allowing ACR in the loop then it would be RAW-Bridge-ACR-CS2-output-Aperture, with additional output being from CS2, NOT Aperture.
So, are the folks who are from the Bridge/ACR/Version Cue/CS2 crowd the ones who like Aperture the least?
Just my thoughts.

Answer 1

No I don't mean pro versus amateur as I have seen the
extremes in both cases.
<...>
Personally I would say the larger volume of images a person has to work with, pro or am, the more likely they are to find Aperture of use. Because it eliminates a trip to PS for so many small tweaks it can save a lot of time over many images.
<...>
I see Aperture as the following: since
RAW-Aperture-ACR/CS2-output(from CS2)-Aperture does
not work as Aperture has no way of allowing ACR in
the loop then it would be
RAW-Bridge-ACR-CS2-output-Aperture, with additional
output being from CS2, NOT Aperture.
<...>
Not quite sure I understood the very last bit, but Aperture does have a way of allowing something like ACR in the mix - 16-bit TIFF input.
My camera is not even currently supported by Aperture. However I don't really care, I am simply bulk-exporting images as 16-bit TIFF files and working with them in Aperture from there. Automatic export options get the image quality rather close and I can fine-tune from within Aperture as needed. If unhappy with a base image I can always just overwrite the stored TIFF representing the "master".
The only downside I see is space, as the TIFF's are rather large. I don't consider the conversion to be much of a downside since I do that in batch.
I used to think people who did heavy Photoshop work would not be as happy with Aperture but I don't think so anymore. It's very easy to move back and forth between Aperture and a complex Photoshop document keeping all the layers intact - the important thing I think is to think of moving to Photoshop as a final step (no more Aperture edits) or disk space use can get out of hand really quickly.
Letting Aperture manage your related PSD's as well has a lot of benefits, like light-table use which I like as a very quick layout tool which replaces some longer trips to InDesign for me.