As it says above, it all depends on what you need to do. Some people get Photoshop because it is "The One To Get" and not because they need it. Some people never ever use more than a rather small fraction of the features in Photoshop.
I subscribe to every word you say.
CC is no different than what they had previously: it's software that you install on your own computers and run on your own computers with files stored wherever you want them (your own computer, your own NAS, etc.). The only difference is licensing. It comes with a license that is only valid for a certain period of time. They check on this by having the software contact their servers once a month. This is no different than how Microsoft has done it with Windows and Office for some years now. What's different is that you pay a monthly fee instead of once.
It works for some software and for some customers but by no means all of them (they are not the first who uses such a model, it's actually a quite common one (the pay per use one) for years now). However, I think we should ask ourselves if offering loads of choices is a good idea. It usually also makes things a lot more complicated (dive into the wondrous world of Microsoft licenses and you'll know exactly what I mean).
That goes without saying. It's something you should do with any kind of software and with any kind of license model. If you need to renew than do so well beforehand because it gives you time to look at the competition. It's just being one step ahead.
Not sure if anyone else has reference this yet but CNET Article, "How Greedy is Adobe's Creative Cloud Subscription? Not very", suggests the cost isn't that bad especially for professionals who kept the old product updated. Just a thought.
I know. I was merely explaining that the CC versions only has different licensing, it's not a completely different set of apps.
You can compare the Adobe CC licensing stuff to what Microsoft is doing with the Windows and Office activation checks (especially the ones in Windows 8 and Office 2013). Btw, "comparing" does not mean "the same"! What Adobe is doing is similar to Microsoft only they are taking it one step further by putting an end date on the license.
Exactly: some like/benefit from the new licensing, others don't. However, I'm not sure about the buy out option. With a car it's a useful one if you want to continue using it personally or if you want to stop leasing. I'm not sure if that will apply to the people who like/benefit this new licensing from Adobe. Most seem to be in it for running the latest version. That's what you'll lose when you buy out.
There are many (major) companies doing this for their software (software for dentist, physiotherapists, etc. in the Netherlands are subscription based; same applies to software for things like EPD just to give you some examples). Most of them are not aimed at consumers but at companies which could be the reason why you haven't seen it yet. Adobe is different because their audience are both companies and consumers. It's the smaller companies and the consumers that seem to be very vocal about the change (in quite a lot of situations rightfully so btw).
There are more options. You can stick with Adobe and in that case there are only 2 options which are the ones you mention here. However, there are other options but that requires a switch to non-Adobe software. Pick your poison.
Why the fear of change? Why such negativism? I feel Adobe has done nothing more than keep up with the times, in fact, staying ahead of the times. We do not own the software, are only licensed to use it. The more I think this through, the more a subscription model makes good business sense. That is even if you are into this stuff as a hobbyist at a serious level.
