One way of assessing the continued utility of Lightroom is in terms of the final product, the use of the image. Yes, there will be a number who use it to generate prints, but I cannot imagine that they are growing as fast as those that generate ephemeral images to share over social media or directly with friends and family.
It is, however, interesting that Google has just decoupled Photos from its social media platform, presumably because the sharing pictures over social media space is fully occupied by Facebook and Flickr, Instagram, et al. In Google's assessment there is a place for an online archiving and limited sharing service, perhaps sharing directly from whatever device you have with you. Apple would appear to have made a similar assessment.
Lightroom's is great for producing images for your own satisfaction, or for wedding photographers, for example, but, like the major DSLR makers, Adobe has not cracked making it easy to archive in the cloud, or share via the device that you have on you or selectively, never mind via social media. Yes, you can sort of do it with Mobile, but it requires too much pre-planning and it is very slow.
If you never needed to print, would you use Lightroom, or would you use Snapseed and Google Photos?
Yes, if you need that last ounce of quality, Lightroom provides a good raw converter. But it's like "is having the sharpest lens the key determinant of picture quality?". Answer is "no" because, although a certain basic level of sharpness is desirable, it is not sharpness that generates the emotional reaction to your image (unless you overdo it in post). But it is also not just image content that generates emotional reaction, it is also immediacy. Lightroom has some way to go before it can help you there.