The article has one or two plausible inclusions, but for the most part it's mostly a very biased attack and for the wrong reasons. What's right about it, is that Apple is once again going to set a standard. This standard of course has nothing to do with how good Aperture is, but how it and apps like it will be sold. The future of boxed sold software shall go the way of the dodo bird.
Not to say Aperture isn't good, but this isn't the point. A couple of comments made almost mirror what I was thinking, so I'll save time and quote them:
This will hit Lightroom on the Mac, but it has no huge relevance for Lightroom overall. Lightroom has been kicking Aperture's a** on the Mac, and a lot of the serious photogs have already made their choice. Of course, it will have no impact on Windows. The main effect will be to broaden the market for high-end photo management on Mac. Lightroom's not ging anywhere. PS- I'm an Aperture user since the beginning.
This breathless and specious article is a disappointment. As JoeP just pointed out, this price cut is almost completely meaningless. Lightroom is the better choice for many reasons, and price is not one of them. Pro photographers are not Best Buy customers who buy the shiniest toy for the lowest price, they do crazy things like run software trials for weeks before dropping the cash. Everyone who is anyone has already done just that, and the vast majority went with Lightroom or Camera Raw. For this reason alone the effect on Adobe will be negligible.
So really the point here is that while professional photographers do use Aperture, they also use LR, and price alone will never dictate the reason why one would be chosen over the other. There is no such thing as compromise where personal preference in terms of quality is concerned.
What was said about trial doing trial runs is a big deal. I did Aperture and LR trials and initially chose LR over Aperture back in the v 1.0 days because Aperture was insanely slow and resource heavy. Beach ball bananza. Version 2, same story, and I thought that LR had much better tools for editing jobs. Version 3, Aperture improved tons with its tools and brushes, but still had massive bugs that slowed down output time. Was another no for me. And when LR 3 hit, with its much improved sharpening algorithms and noise reduction.. I didn't care much about any improvements A3 would be making.. not beside idle curiosity, anyway.
I'm not alone in my feelings and experience with this, and would bet anything that most normal people don't care about brand name when it comes to getting the job done in the most efficient and pleasing way possible. And yes, that goes both ways of course. Should I find that Aperture is finally caught up to the standards that I hold to Lightroom in the ways that I find it to be better, then heck yeah... I'll go with Aperture for less than half the price.
However, most professionals don't have the time to spend learning a new piece of software like that, when they've already dedicated years honing their skills with something else.
On the other hand, this spells great news for lots of other people. New photographers, people on a budget, those looking to upgrade from iPhoto etc etc... Aperture would make a great choice for anybody, but mostly for anybody whom really spent the time making an informed decision about whether or not it's truly better for them than something like LR is, and not just because it's cheaper or doesn't bear the Adobe trademark. And I'm saying that knowing that a LOT of people do choose Apple products for simply that reason alone.
Doug
One thing you're kind of wrong about though... The target market these apps are designed for does not equate to 95% of the "Average Joe" population. Neither Aperture or LR were meant to appeal to the point and shoot iPhoto crowd. Therefore, those whom are interested in them, will take the time to make sure that the program they choose does more than just "get the job done". 
