Ah, digital and the professional photographer!
As I remember the introduction of digital, it was greeted with suspicion and not a little scepticism. Most pros I know hate change, and for very good reason: it isn't a rapid path to finding what works for you. Film was not a single product, and neither were processing chemicals. Both offered endless combinations and they were most certainly not all producing identical results.
So, why on Earth would anyone suddenly choose to leap upon another train, especially before it's come to a halt at the platform, and before one even knows where its next stop ¡s going to be?
Much is made about film and processing costs; these had never been of interest to the pro because they were passed on down the line in exactly the same way as are model fees etc. etc. The only people that digital's initial lie about freedom from costs after purchase could posibly attract would be the cash-concerned amateur seeing no return on his 'investment'. Photography has never been an 'investment' when undertaken for love, any more than has sailing or driving sports cars. It's just something, that can be very expensive, undertaken because you like it enough to spend what it takes. So no, it's unlikely all pros thought digital was going to solve problems, but that it was going to be much more likely to introduce a fresh new set of learning curves in all possible directions, the last thing anyone needed.
And the reality turned out to be even worse. Whereas transparencies would simply be handed over to the client and billed, the new way decreed that the poor old snapper would now have to start retouching, spending hours more time than before on the same job and, if busy, having to take in less work just to create time to push through the pipes the work he already had. And no, being a retoucher isn't the same skill set as being a snapper. So what to do? Employ more people? Really? And where do you get the increased work and money with which to pay them and your various legal obligations stemming from employing them? You can't charge more - "no processing costs, right?" - your client will tell you (especially if he owns a digital P&S) as he looks for reduced charges from you.
So apart from the increased costs for photographers shooting to commission, those shooting stock found themselves faced with different but nonetheless damaging changes in circumstances. Where they had once been able to afford to finance trips and models for lifestyle work, they now discovered that their own agencies were starting to reduce the percentages they would offer them, and that they were being faced with a new wave of competition from the amateur with often no interest in money, simply in the imaginary glory of getting into print. This new competition wasn't happening in lifestyle so much as in travel, and travel-atmospherics where the absence of film and processing costs did indeed have an effect! Computer time was part of the buzz for the amateur, not an added waste of money.
As a result, stock agencies had more material than they could handle, they themselves suffered more competition, and they had the muscle to cut the suppliers' return even further back. Until we reached where we are today.
As I see it, the future belongs to those very bright photographers who are multi-skilled, work high enough up the food chain to pay for all that digital entails, the upgrades to computers, cameras and all the rest of it, without forgetting the requirements in knowledge and equipment to become producers of motion footage.
For the small, individual photographer of yore, I think it's over, whichever choice of photographic medium he makes.