This is a good thread. But I am (another) photographer who likes a Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow. A pumped-up Lightroom is not my dream program. Basically, I would prefer to continue using Photoshop as I have been, with a perpetual license, so I control my own future. I would pay more for it if I had to. If that option is no longer possible, I will probably have to learn Gimp or Photoline.
Why? Well, I use lots of selections, and selection-based adjustment layers on TIFF files. I prefer to do black and white conversions using a layer in Photoshop, which allows me to tweak those conversions in coordination with my other adjustment layers (like curves). I prefer to do my final sharpening and noise reduction using Photoshop plugins.
I do not like database/metadata storage of my image changes--I want them saved in my files themselves. I cringe to think of how many things in the digital world can corrupt or obsolete a whole database of all my work, backed up or not. I like Collections, but fundamentally I prefer to organize my files using date and subject folders.
Lightroom seems designed to save time for processing large numbers of images. I'm not in a hurry. I rarely do big photo shoots that require minor processing. I spend a long time on each file that I select to process and print, and usually end up revisiting that file many times. I'm not worried about disk space. What I prize is stability, conservation of data, smoothness, and fine flexible control.
I could be happy with a leaner version of Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I do not need Puppet Warp, HDR Toning, Liquify, Oil Paint, Adaptive WA, Video, most of what's in Render. I only need a simple text tool. I would also be okay with a lean program that allows more exotic features to be purchased as add-ons.
If Lightroom gained fine selection tools and adjustment layers, and kept its perpetual license, I'd probably have to take another look at it. But I'd rather not have to. Just my thoughts.