I think when we bemoan the lack of feature parity between Classic and the Cloud we tend to overlook some factors. @Jao vdL has already talked about the different audiences for the two product sets, which has obviously been a factor in the initial development path for the cloud apps, but there are other things to also consider.
First, let's not forget that Classic has had a 10 year head start in terms of development, so to my mind it's unrealistic to ever expect full feature parity while both apps are still being developed. Yes, I'm sure if the Classic development was stopped and the resources switched to cloud, then we'd see much faster progress in closing the gap (but imagine the howls of protest from the currect Classic user-base if that were ever to happen).
Also let's not forget that whereas Classic only has to be developed for Windows and MacOS, the cloud stuff has iOS, Android, and Web platforms to incorporate as well. And some of those differences most definitely affect the ability to keep all the apps in sync from a development perspective.
Then consider Camera Raw, which is a separate develpment team whose work has a direct impact on the development resources of both Classic and Cloud (masking being a really good recent example, with both the Classic and cloud teams still trying to iron out the syncing issues which arose from that implementation). So would Camera Raw development also have to stop to allow Cloud to catch up? Rather unlikely, I would have thought.
Also, it's probably fair to say that the majority of people disaffected by the fact that Classic has more features than Cloud are in fact existing Classic users. So what do Adobe gain by adding those missing features to the cloud, if all it does is encourage more users to switch from Classic to the cloud? The question for marketing (and thus the development roadmap) is whether adding Print or Map to the cloud, or allowing keywords to sync between Classic and the cloud, will bring in significant NEW users for Adobe. They gain nothing by having existing users switch from one to the other.
So with that said, it's left to the Classic user to find ways of incorporating the cloud into their workflows (should they be interested, there are many Classic users who have zero interest in the cloud). I'm still mainly Classic-based (though it wouldn't take much to persuade me to permanently switch) and largely because my library is small enough to allow me to store all originals in the cloud within the 1TB figure, I have developed a workflow which allows me to continue to use Classic and Cloud and keep them in sync with each other. That mainly means importing into Classic (into a "holding" folder), developing and adding most metadata there (mainly the keywords and location data which does not sync). Once that stage has been finished I convert to DNG (which embeds all the metadata into the file), then remove the images from Classic and import into the Cloud. So the originals are in the cloud, complete with all the metadata, and a copy of them are synced back to Classic and are stored in my standard date-based folder scheme. I wouldn't be doing it that way if I was a power user with several TB of images, but I'm not so what I have works very well for my needs. If I didn't want or need originals in the cloud, the simple syncing of SPs from Classic to the Cloud would work OK.
... View more