Maybe you got a wrong impression of my words or I couldn't explain myself better. So here I go again trying to make my point clearer:
Maximizing income from your talent is logic. We agree on that. Doing otherwise would be quite idiotic as with the income you can live more comfortable and produce more creative assets which with luck will enlarge this perpetuating cycle. If this cycle goes in reverse mode you are doing something totally wrong from a business perspective. Now if your goals are others like being happy for being published, giving your images for low or no money at all for the benefit of the community that is an all different approach which I am not interested to discuss as my only interest in making "commercial" images is to maximize profits. I also shoot personal work where sometimes Ego comes into play and those maximizing income goals might step back to a second term.

In the realm of photography you can make as little as a few dollars every month or some are un the 6+ figures annually. In between all the range. When I come here and say my numbers it is not intended to belittle anyone but to give readers the information of what is possible. A lot of photographers  make more than me and from a business perspective I am interested in their strategies. As you would comprehend I am not interested at all at those that make a few hundred dollars a month. They are of no use to my business. Now of course they can post their strategies here the same as I post mine. If you have a very well paid job and you do it as a side income (even if it is a good side income for you) it is no use for me or any other photographer that wants to license their images for a comfortable living in a western standard country. Your posts on the other side might get a lot of traction and interest of those photographers that make this as a secondary income to their actual jobs and with your income they might calibrate the possibilities of what is possible in that terrain.

I am not too good for micro at all. Now if I visit read and post in these forums are because I have some of my work to license through microstock agencies. I have been on the top micros and exclusive to the Istock/Getty family. Both with advantages and drawbacks. I don't like them or hate them specially (like all the bashing for ones or the others that you can read here sometimes) Every agency has their business model and tries to maximize their revenue for owners or share holders. Fine with that. I follow my interests. Sometimes they go along the agencies (for example when they try to fight piracy and defend intellectual property of assets) and sometimes they are confronted when they slash commissions to suppliers. At any of their decisions there is a reaction of mine.

A few years ago my time spent in creating micro images (from a business point of view) was very well spent. Now not so much anymore. Nothing against micro. They will stay here for long...the consolidation of micro agencies will still go forward till there only a couple of players. I guess three or four big ones all the others will be gone. Of course there will be niche agencies with higher prices that will still coexist with the big players but will only survive if their product is differentiated unique and not available in those giant outlets. It is all already happening in front of us. So i am not saying that anyone should not contribute to Shutterstock / Adobe / Istock there are a lot of more "mundane" images that have to be there if you want to sell them at all. But for the special ones, those with high production costs it will be a losing proposition to give those images to those giants as their returns would be better in other places be it in macro/mid stock agencies/distributors or pursuing commercial clients. There are already many photographers that have seen this reality . Others are happy still doing objects on white and delivering to the known micros. Well good luck to them if they rely on these for their livehood......it is not going to be easier every year that goes by. it has nothing to do with elitism it has to do with the real world and what is happening in front of our eyes right now.

I never called anybody a slave for contributing to Shutterstock. You should read twice before putting sentences in somebody�s mouth that were never spoken. I said that I despise people with slave mentality like the one were/are defending in this post and generally in the forum. You look is take it or leave those agencies are a Godsend to us and everyone speaking against those is crazy and should not because nobody is forcing you to be there. That my friend is a slave mentality. Everybody is entitled to disapprove the way some of this corporations treat contributors and photography/ers they have their function and positive aspects, the same as they have ugly shady corners that many of us with now many years of experience dealing with them have the right to expose.

I don�t want to make a good impression to anyone. I don't give a dime of what you or anyone thinks of me or my words. I take the time to write to give my point of view/experience. If somebody finds it useful perfect, if somebody doesn't like it perfect too. Have a nice and sunny day.

In my mind it's not complicated. We all thought the web was going to create new opportunity, give everyone a chance,  let buyers and producers find each other in a free, open and 'flat' marketplace.  Instead, it turns out - in the case of stock photography - that the web ultimately allowed a small number of middlemen to gain control of the market and grind suppliers into dust. Like all abusive middlemen, they keep the lions share of the profit while adding little real value to the product; and they're able to keep buyers and producers from connecting directly. 

It's a classic situation in economics, and the remedy - routing around the middlemen - is called disintermediation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

Unfortunately in an internet market, cutting out the middleman is a technical challenge that hasn't been met yet - as witnessed by the failure of attempts like Symbiostock.

well said, stockastic.
i think in a way we are the ones partly responsible for letting the middleman control and grind us into dust. if there was no monopoly of ss, like it was before
with istock kicking ar$e as the one who keep ss on their toes,
we probably would not have let ss grind our ar$e either.

competition is healthy and monopoly encourages explaoitation.

and as far as who says what ... arrogant or not,
no one wants to be the slave or lackey for any company.
we all like to be treated fairly and feel that our work is given a level playing field
and we have an unwritten respect and good faith.

unfortunately, it is no longer that way with shutterstock,
and as i said, we made them this way !!!

I'd like to see the end of every Microstock agency. I'd ditch Royalty Free licenses at the same time, if I could.