I think your best option is to continue using Aperture.
I know it's crazy that a software-only company like Adobe can't give you unlimited licenses to software when Apple could. Maybe Apple could because it encouraged you to buy FOUR of its far more profitable computers by doing so.
A lot more than four
But yes, Apple understand that people buy multiple computers and licensing software such that they can't buy something and run it on all of them makes no sense.
Anyway, I agree, I'm in no rush to switch to an alternative until Aperture starts to fall apart at the seams or the alternative is actually more attractive.
But besides that, unlimited licenses aren't required. I'd just like a license that allowed me, as a single user, to use the software on more than two machines without the activation headache. Even if it was (for arguments sake) four, then the deactivation/activation thing if I went beyond that would be significantly less of a problem.
And the thing is it's not like Adobe don't *allow* me to switch computers, it's just that they make it bloody annoying to do so, and as it stands I'd likely either be constantly running into problems from forgetting to deactivate something, or I'd have to change my workflow to suit them.
Licensing it for household use I can understand them being more reticent about, because that's a somewhat difference market, but I would be less bothered about needing two licenses if those licenses were themselves at least a bit less restrictive on what those individual users can do.
There's not much other software where (as an individual user) I'm expected/prepared to buy a license for each computer. Stuff that runs all the time, maybe - the OS itself, virus software, etc., maybe. But applications are pretty commonly licensed for a user *or* a machine, not a tiny set of user+machine combinations.
