Here's a summation, and I bet I'm right about all of it.
1. Adobe is moving to a subscription model because whatever PR problems it may cause them in the short term, in the longer term, it will make more money for them. Otherwise, they would not do it. And they made that calculation in advance. They may not have appreciated the intensity of the negative reaction, but that's not uncommon, even with huge corporations (New Coke.)
2. They could support both CC and CS versions of Photoshop, but it would cost somewhat more to do that. The extra cost would be essentially trivial when it is viewed as a tax-deductible business expense and in light of Adobe's multi-billion-dollar annual revenue. However, there may be other reasons for moving to CC, in addition to revenue. One of them would be to curtail piracy; another one would be to smooth and regularize the revenue flow; another might be that they see a dwindling supply in the magic pot, and realize that people might start upgrading with an even lower frequency than they do now if they can no longer provide compelling upgrades. So they move to a model where you pay for it, whether or not you think it's worthwhile. There are probably others that I don't know about. But they could support both versions if they wished. That is not an insuperable engineering problem.
3. Adobe is not now, and never has been, primarily run to benefit customers. It is primarily run to benefit stockholders and employees, and in that latter category, primarily management. Managers, as opposed to (at least some) engineers, are generally not idealists, because idealism mostly doesn't pay off, and management is ultimately about the payoff -- especially in public companies. I could go on for a while about this, but most people here are smart enough to understand the implication for management if it doesn't return enough to investors.
4. I believe if Adobe (at some point in the future) believes moving LR to a CC model would make significantly more money, then they'll do that. However, it's possible that they might view LR as a somewhat more complicated situation, but generally analogous, to free products like Flash or Reader -- that is, for the difference in revenue between a CC and perpetual license version, it may be worth it to the company to keep the perpetual license going simply for corporate goodwill and etc. But this would only obtain if the revenue difference would not be substantial. Without actually doing this, I think this is ultimately a version of what Jeff is arguing -- that there could be good corporate reasons for keeping LR on a perpetual license model.
5. There's reason to trust Adobe only on one basis: that it will do what its managers believe will generate the most money. We can more or less trust them to do that. But what that means for customers, I don't know. Over on The Online Photographer, there's a discussion going on about washing machines and American manufacturing. Mike Johnston, the operator of TOP, owns an old Maytag, made in Newton, Iowa, and points out that they are no longer made there. I'm originally from Iowa, and I can tell you that this is a very harsh story. Maytag had been in Newton for a long time -- decades -- and essentially was the financial mainstay of the entire community. The Maytag managers, who lived and worked in Newton, and had done so forever, decided to move production to Mexico, knowing as they did it that it would devastate the economy of an entire town where many of them had grown up and where they had most of their family and friends...and they did it anyway. And the town was economically devastated. That's modern American management, and if you trust a big company to do the "right" thing, you are hopelessly naive.