This is why I do not consider the Aperture plugins to be proper plugins, more external editors than are sort of in Aperture, but don't actually do Aperture/LR like, non-destructive editing.
The fact that you can do local adjustments like dodge and burn in LR, along with grad filters makes Aperture look like a distinctly poor relation.
Horses for courses. LR's local adjustments can't do what Viveza can do. And they certainly can't do what Silver FX Pro or Color FX Pro can do. Yes, you can use the same plug-ins in Photoshop, but as I've explained previously, in many cases I do not WANT to round trip to Photoshop. Because, more often than not, it gets in my way. I don't use it that often, and every time I used to want to make a small tweak in Photoshop, I would spend literally HOURS trying to re-learn how to create a selection, mask, etc. And I don't want to do that, and I also don't want a 1 GB file because it's saved my layers.
Would I like to see non-destructive Aperture plug-ins? ABSOLUTELY! Does the fact that they're currently "destructive" mean they're no better than (and in fact are worst than, because they're less flexible than) the same plug-ins or a complicated workflow in Photoshop? Absolutely not! When you've gotten as far as you can with Aperture's global edits, and you want to do some tweaks late in the process, and then use Sharpener Pro, they're GREAT for that. A new version is created, and there you go.
There's also distinctly less performance penalty for the TIFF files without layers. I know many, many people who upgraded their computers because LR 2.x stunk up the farm, where LR 1.x performed just fine. Is that due to the local corrections, or what?