I disagree that it's an Adobe problem, (remember Adobe also was the creator of PS, that's how they started) the problem is more in the nature of keeping colour at a high level of abstraction and then landing it without crashing it. It is just another case of flexibility versus simplicity. I do not agree that the PS process makes things more repeatable. If you want colour repeatability to span materials and techniques then properly managed colour is far superior, provided you know what you want, especially as we consider a world where many of the output devices are LCDs as in touchpads and smatphones. As technology changes we need to work out how to handle it. To know and understand the limits, preferably before they cause us a problem.
The biggest problem is actually knowing what is expected, and that is why I say the Pantone Bridge is the number one tool (coated and uncoated versions) Clients need to be able to talk about their needs without it getting too abstract. Workflows can be configured in many ways, but unless we know clearly what we are aiming at we will never hit it. Adobe has given us alternative paths and you can create your own swatch book if you are not pleased with the ones that are included. Even LAB values are limited as you need to decide if you want to convert the spectral values at 5000k (industry standard viewing) or 6500k (Adobe RGB), for some colours this will have more of an impact than others. If pantone was to give a full rendering we would have a spectral table for each pantone colour at each substrate, and this is just not reasonable, so there are some compromises made, and most users will, for the most part manage fine.
