Lightroom not a one-stop shop for Pro Photographers

Question

The claim to fame purports to make this a one-stop processing shop for Photographers.
Most photographers prefer to send their post-processed files to the lab. And if they really know their stuff, they are probably profiling their images to the lab printers. This is where LR fails miserably.
To make my point, I will start off by explaining how RawShooter worked (RawShooter was purchased by Adobe and after major surgical procedure sold as Lightroom):
For Rawshooter:
1. Open the RAW file.
2. Choose the profile of the printer I wish to use for the final output. This results in a significant color shift to the image as seen on the screen. After all, the benefit of the profile is to ensure that What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).
3. Make changes to the image so that the final output is to your liking. (remember, the RAW files themselves are never modified. All you do is create offset points and save that data seperately)
4. Export to JPG
5. Send image to the lab with an assurance that WYSIWYG.
With Lightroom:
1. Open the RAW file
2. No ability to choose a printer profile.
3. Make changes to the image with no idea how the final output is going to look. (remember, the RAW files themselves are never modified. All you do is create offset points and save that data seperately)
4. Export to JPG
5. Send image to lab with the hope you like what you get (HYLWYG)
So, LR cannot be a one-stop shop for processing and printing RAW files. Any one who understands the importance of printer profiles would demand a WYSIWYG image to which one can apply the changes.
Rawshooter was much better at this.

Answer 1

My chip was largely from the way the Pixmantec acquisition was handled. I think everyone felt that was a real issue. George and Tom (and probably others) started the turnaround with the announcement of the freebie for RSP users.
The other issue was that there really wasn't much for Windows users at the time (which was every RSP user). B3 came out and was pretty, umm..., in need of help. Then B4 came out and we started to see how fast the team was working. B4 was impressive from that standpoint, but a disaster in another way - it would only run for 5-10 minutes at a time before crashing for me. That was frustrating because I could see the improvements, but not use the tool. But the fact that we had started to see movement in a positive direction (instability not withstanding) started to turn attitudes around, at least for me.
Since I've been a tester I've seen more first hand how dedicated and hard working the team actually is. 1.0 was far from perfect, either from a QE standpoint or from a feature standpoint. But it's more movement. When you see two positive changes in a short time, you start to see a pattern.
I still see both detail and fundamental problems with LR. But now I'm just trying like crazy to help the team move forward, one little bit at a time, in what little way I can. Given the team's dedication, I have no doubt that we'll get "there" (wherever that is) as long as they get continued support from Adobe management.
I still think you jump on people too quickly, Jeff. I think you should give people one strike (like you did with me) instead of calling them out after the first one. Answer an overly-aggressive post with kindness. If you get more flames back, then that's different. But sometimes you get useful information instead. You never get that when you respond with flames! You're too darned useful for us little guys not to be getting the full benefit of your experience.