Svein - the thing is, one has to accept that different people have different photographic dreams.
Thought I made that clear by saying: "Nothing wrong with microstok" and "It's all about personal preferances and why you do photography in the first place" and "The time, effort and expense of creating such a portfolio really isn't worth it, unless creating stock is your primary goal as a photographer".
To me microstock isn't interesting because:
A. The images I want to make aren't suitable for stock
B. The subjects that are depicted in stock photos that sell doesn't interest me.
I have no problem with people doing things differently from me! If I could be alone in my photographhic niché, nothing could be better, right? To quote myself again: "It's all about personal preferances and why you do photography in the first place"
The lower range will kill off the higher valued one taking stock out of the pro's remit and dropping it firmly into the world of the amateur. And why not? If the market can be satisfied that way, then that's the market's voice, loud and clear.
Not how I would have liked to have seen professional photography go, but there you are.
I don't think that will happen, I just think that some of the bad pros will suffer competing against the good amateurs. In the end, great pictures will always be in demand, and making great images will never be easy. How many 20 year old images are sold today? The markets wants new and fresh and our perception of technical and aesthetical quality constantly change. It wasn't easy making it as a pro 30 years ago, and it still isn't easy. Why should it be?
That some make money from their hobby is a good thing, because in the end, most great artists start out as amateurs and learn by doing. Musicians today face the opposite problem. It is almost impossible today for an unknown band to get gigs, while 20 years ago, you could get a gig playing spoons...