BC, tens of thousands of professional photographers *vehemently* disagree with your opinion, and they have voted with their wallets. For them, LR is the opposite of "obsolete" -- it is the best thing for their photography that has come along in a long time.
That being said, most of these are pro event shooters working under tight deadlines, and for whom time is either money (eg, wedding pros), or is their job (sports, news). They have to make basic, but high quality, image-wide adjustments and then ASAP, move on to the next image in a set that can easily include 1500+ images in a few hours. Unless these pros can get that set out the door to their editor or client, they are not paid.
In fact, sports and news guys are absolutely prohibited from doing many of the things that distinguish PS from LR, for example, "cleaning up the background" with some of the most beloved PS-specific tools such as the clone stamp, content aware fill, complex masks, etc.
These pros just don't have the luxury of a graphic designer, art photographer, semi-pro wedding shooter (in actuality subsidized by by their day job or spouse), or an amateur photography enthusiast who can spend hours tweaking a small number of images. For event shooters, an all-in-one software package, ie, image ingestion, basic edits, database, some common forms of output (eg, FTP, slideshow, print packages, etc.) is just irresistible.
Personally, and I have said this before on this forum, I switch back and forth between the two depending on whether or not I'm shooting an event for my employer or I'm tweaking a single image image to perfection.
Tom M
