Photo management software - Lightroom 3 or Aperture 3?

Lightroom and Aperture are both raw converters and photo managers. As I said before, there is not much difference in quality between Lightroom and Aperture as raw converters. It's pretty much a tie for me. To choose between one of them, I need to consider their features as a photo manager. I'll leave the Nikon View/Capture NX pair as they don't play as a good photo manager.

Each of Lightroom and Aperture has an excellent feature set. If you've got good skills and sufficient time, you can almost produce nearly identical looking images by either one. The decision will thus come with the small details, in particular the convenience and fun of use. My post-processing workflow will also have a lot to do with which one I prefer.

There are never-ending Aperture vs. Lightroom debates. The least biased submissions that I can find are those put forward by Scott Kelby. Among the factors commonly raised in the never-ending Aperture vs. Lightroom debate in various forums, I find the following ones that concerns me and my workflow most:

(A) Lightroom's advantages

• Adobe gives you lens correction profiles and camera profiles similar to Nikon's Picture Control. For Aperture, you have to rely on profiles created by the community. [Any solution? No. Use Capture NX2 for converting critical works instead.]
• It seems Aperture's white balance is not as accurate on import in comparison to Lightroom, and there is no auto white balance feature like in Lightroom. [Any solution? Seems none.]
• It has a gradient tool. [Any solution? No, unless you use a suitable plugin.]
• Lightroom blows away Aperture for color adjustments. It has a targeted adjustment tool where you just put your cursor on the screen and move it up or down to adjust hue/saturation/luminance. I could make several adjustments in Lightroom before I could select the eye dropper tool and pick the color I need in Aperture. [Any solution? No.]
• Aperture has export presets that are limited to file type and pixel size. Lightroom exports presets incorporate just about every setting that is available in the program. You can't sharpen photos during export with Aperture. [Any solution? No convenient solution.]
• Noise reduction is better in Lightroom. [Any solution for Aperture? Use plugins.]

(B) Aperture's advantages

• Aperture has a real clone brush and Lightroom only has a spot removal tool. If I don't have Aperture and want to remove a power line in the sky, I have to use Capture NX2 or Photoshop. [Any solution? No. Use Capture NX2 instead]
• It's a better organizer. For example, in Lightroom, all (smart) collections are separate from the image hierarchy (the folders), which is a mess. In Aperture, (smart) albums are part of the hierarchy, so you always know where they are. [Any solution for Lightroom? No, but it is not unbearable.]
• Almost any adjustment can be brushed in locally. It's brush is more sophisticated, e.g. it can just affects the highlights and shadows rather than anything else it touches. [Any solution for Lightroom? No, but it only slows down the process.]
• Vignette and skin smoothing is better in Aperture. [Any solution for Lightroom? No, unless you use plugins.]
• It has more "fun", e.g. faces, places, slideshows and books. They are not "must-have" items, but they're fun. [Any solution for Lightroom? No, although we can use iPhoto for slideshows and books.]

It's a difficult choice of gives-and-takes. Finally I've decided to buy Lightroom 3, because it seems it takes a much larger market share and shows better potential for improvement.