Because a big company like adobe should understand that other software exist in the typical modern workflow and the only way colors can be managed right if along the way the same CMM is used. Adobe should be grateful that other software makers make an option to choose a CMM in the first place.
How so? How would this aid in their bottom line?
Keep in mind converting applications from x32bit to x64bit is a simple process, and they allready use 64bit CMM in their applications so this not needed, it simply needs to be made available as standalone. It this too much to ask?
If it's simple, anyone would/could do it. And yes, it's too much to ask. You want an Adobe CMM, use an Adobe product. You want PV2012, well you better be using an Adobe raw converter.
What does adobe loose in making 64bit ACE CMM as standalone engine??
Time, money, tech support calls, documentation, uploading etc.
It's like saying kodak should fix their film to match fuji or vice versa. There is a reason why choosing CMM is made available in software, if it's not available then it's not professional software.
Once again, please read what Scott and I have written: Unless you find a bug in a CMM, the differences between them should be tiny. You know the differences between say the Apple CMM and the Adobe CMM in dE?
Profile maker should provide software to print the targets?
Yes, since that's a requirement of their method of printing to build a profile. No one else needs that.
If I use RIP, I print with it. If I use adobe I would like to print with it, with same exact image printing controls like in print preview window, why should I use some utility that is piece of crap?
Begging the question, why are you using a RIP if you expect it and say Photoshop to provide identical output?
Porting Print preview to separate utility was a chore for them i guess, but removing the features from all applications wasn't?
In terms of the loss of tech support calls, yes indeed. It was why it was removed. Few people need it, many who don't know better accessed it, then had problems. It was smart to yank it out.
I thought adobe was concerned that color reproduction would be right from input to output, since users need to work with other software that is possible by selecting same CMM in every program they use."
It should be and if not, ask the other party why they don't produce the same results.
Get over the fact that No CM is gone from Photoshop and isn't coming back. If you need to print this way, find another way. If you really want a 64-bit CMM from Adobe, solely to use in non Adobe products, take up a collection and try to get Adobe to build it, or more rationally, ask all those 3rd party companies who don't have a 64-bit Adobe CMM to pony up and pay for it. Or just continue to bitch and moan at Adobe which will solve nothing because really, it isn't their problem. They probably shouldn’t have been so generous in providing the 32-bit CMM in the first place, it only serves to spoil people into thinking they deserve freebie’s forever.
IF a 64-bit Adobe CMM is so utterly important to you, how much would you pay for it?