Quote from: StockPhotosArt on September 29, 2017, 07:00

Quote from: cobalt on September 29, 2017, 03:02
You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!

Is this that f*unking hard to get into your thick skulls?!

And sorry by the terms, but are you people so stupid and dumb that are completely clueless about the power of images?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, in this forum people are so outrageously ignorant that haven't realized that images affect and even help change society?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really?!

Haven't you noticed how children books, and teenagers magazines and covered with images? Isn't that a sign of the power of visual communication? People, images are one of the most powerful tools of propaganda and World Wars were brewed using them!

It's because clueless (or selfish and greedy for a buck) people like you that these laws are created. People without the slightest common sense that force the state to be a nanny. You don't like nanny states? Then grown a conscience and an ethic so others won't have laws imposed about everything.

You people are the reason nanny states grow in power.  Stop playing the naive and caring role, because the last things that's in your minds is the welfare of others. You are simply bothered because someone messed with your photoshop workflow. Cry me a river...

And again, in case you have trouble processing this mind blowing idea:

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!

StockPhotosArt. Your intentions are obviously novel. You want to protect the impressionable youngsters of our communities from the unnecessary harm of having to live up to ever increasing standards of beauty and "thin-ness".

I disagree strongly with the way you are writing your reply. Your all caps, red bold text, suggests that you claim some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of this thread. Discussion is healthy StockPhotosArt! Even if you disagree. In fact the way you write strongly resembles the kind of "hate speech" that the European Union will now demand that social media sites police and ban. So ironically, you seem to have fallen victim to the no-goes of the very same political correctness movement you seem to support so dearly.

The newly elected French government has another 3.5 years or so to find out that banning liquifying will not make the "children, teenagers and young adults" feel better about themselves. In fact. I am pretty sure the opposite will be the case. Before this ban on liquifying, the "children, teenagers and young adults" all knew that what they saw on posters and billboards, was most likely retouched. Now however, they have a legal guarantee that the beautiful and thin models actually look like that. This ban on liquifying won't make big commercials suddenly change the kind of models they use, so they look more real. It will have the opposite effect. They will start booking models that look good enough, so that no liquifying is needed and thus avoid the label "this image has been retouched". Like if a tobacco company could spend a little extra, and avoid the "this product causes cancer" label. Do you not think they would do so?

This ban, will make the very people we are trying to protect feel even worse about themselves, and it will make an already unhealthy model industry even more unhealthy. The intentions are good, and despite the differences in opinion in this thread, I think we all agree that it is a good thing to cause as little harm to our ""children, teenagers and young adults" as we can. It is the solution that is the problem.

Dear Ladies and Gents.
While we are all entitled to our own opinion, please let's tone down the swearing and name calling. I would love to continue this discussion in a positive manner in the comments section of the post on my site. Don't just sit around with your complaint buddies and shoulder pat each other on this forum. If you mean the things you say, put it in a good argument, and I will happily respond.

http://arcurs.com/2015/10/a-closer-look-at-adobe-stock/

This is the guy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/gorillaimages

Does anybody know this guy or has his contact details? He is doing pretty good!

Quote from: EmberMike on July 31, 2013, 17:08

Quote from: Xanox on July 31, 2013, 10:10... he got the foot in the door with IS at the right time and at the right place, found his own "gold mine" and executed his business plan better than all the other players...

Did he? Really? I think that's a highly debatable point.

I'd argue that other people are far more successful than Yuri, people who are making good money without all of the overhead he has. Honestly I cant imagine how he makes any money when he has 100 employees to pay and his whole business brings in less than $10 million. Sounds like a lot of money but it doesn't go far when you've got so many mouths to feed.

Quote from: Xanox on July 31, 2013, 10:10ironically for photographers, your limit is not seeing the whole picture ...

Could say the same for you, ignoring the big part of the picture where Yuri not only has a ton of money coming in but also has a ton going out the door also.

We will just have to wait and see who wins as the most expansive company in Denmark next year wont we.

Quote from: JPSDK on July 31, 2013, 15:50

Quote from: niserin on July 31, 2013, 10:00

Quote from: sharpshot on July 30, 2013, 23:41
I can't help but think that with Yuri's background in psychology, he's playing a game with us here.  This forum has an anti Getty/istock bias and Yuri going exclusive was never going to make him more popular.  Then he invests in a site that could potentially damage microstock.  So now he can play games, as he's no longer the independent microstockers hero.  I find it hard to believe he wouldn't of been aware of the reaction he would get to his statement and some of his recent posts here.

With all due respect I would not consider BA in psychology in some Danish school a <<psychology background>>

Utterly disrespectful.

I agree here. Many things can be said about me, but that the line of psychology at Aarhus University is "second grade" is very untrue. To enter, you have to be in the top 2% (top 1% for most districts). Some respect is deserved here

Quote from: topol on July 31, 2013, 10:19
Yuri got outcompeted, so he blamed it on the business model and escaped into a special deal. The macro agencies basically did / doing the same thing, didn't help them either.

HAHAHA. At 350% above my next competitor I hardly think that is the case.

Quote from: sharpshot on July 31, 2013, 09:08

Quote from: Xanox on July 31, 2013, 03:55
c'mon guys, Yuri's press release if of course a funny PR stunt but i've seen a lot worse in other industries.

i don't have the feeling Yuri reached the point where he's believing his own sh-it, he's just having a laugh on micro agencies and SS in particular, guess he still has a chip on the shoulder with them ?

you're all angry because Yuri was the living proof it was possible to make a living with microstock alone and now you're shocked and despaired to be told by the king himself that you better go back to macro agencies as micro is financially unsustainable as it is today.

so you feel betrayed and rejected by the guy you idolized for so long but seriously i can't see any mind control tricks in his statements, just common marketing BS you can read in any other press release, i think he was just in a happy mood drinking a couple beers and wanting to have fun on you guys.

He's having a laugh and you're having a laugh but it doesn't make me angry, I find it funny.  Yuri is a factory, has nothing at all in common with the cheap way the vast majority of microstockers work.  It looks like he's been paid off by Getty, good for him.  I'll carry on doing what I want to do and not taking advice from people that know nothing about working with very low expenses.  I don't want to be the owner of a big business or have to work only with Getty.  I'm quite happy as a sole trader.  There's problems with microstock but there's also problems with the traditional sites and we all have to deal with them in our own way. 

It's a shame we can't all get together and work on the real problem, sites that are making huge profits while reducing the commission they pay us.  They always seem to get the last laugh.  Imagine how funny they find these threads with stock contributors bickering when it takes the attention away from what they're doing.

In the state of things, no chance. Work together? A union you mean? I really put thought into that, but decided to abandon it primarily because of the people that would be "in the union". Not a chance that would have worked.

Quote from: gbalex on July 31, 2013, 03:06
Good post with thought behind it Leo... so different than the non stop micro background buzz.

Who can blame Jacob for parking his images where he feels they will hold their value best. He worked hard and non stop to build his brand. It is pretty clear that the sites have no interest in protecting the value of our assets. In their race for market share, they are perfectly willing to drive the value of our hard work down to quickly fill their pockets. They do not want to wait the 20 or 50 years that companies did in the past to build net worth.  They are perfectly willing to take it out of our own hides in the short term.

I think people are so quick to find fault with Yuri that they take his comment's out of context. For instance I suspect that this comment was NOT an insult to other microstockers but a reference to his own decisions over the last few years. "and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones"

The marketing hype does get old and is offensive considering the state of the market. In any case I am finding the non stop snooping into other peoples ports and business counter productive. Minding everyone else's business has become a trend here and on other micro sites. The fork in the road is getting closer and we should be taking Leo's and Jacob's lead of focusing on our backup plan; what ever we individually decide that should be.

Nicely said.

I have spent the last 30min reading through this thread. Hmm...
It seems this post has become more about mocking me for taking the right business decisions and desperately trying to hold on to ones own wrong ones. When arguments stop making sense, mocking helpfully steps in.

Have a good one.
Y

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on July 26, 2013, 14:41

Quote from: cthoman on July 26, 2013, 14:31

Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 09:02
Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.

I actually just came to watch the circus.

And did you see the chimps?

I saw a few.

Quote from: somethingpretentious on July 26, 2013, 16:34
Hi Yuri

I have a very hard time seeing scoopshot as a place where photographers can make any substantial amount of money. Do you agree that scoopshot is not the place for photographers trying to make a living?

You are taking some heat from your comment about professionalism, but you do not need to have been present in any meetings to see that there are at least some truth to that. Just compare the front page of Dreamstime to that of Peopleimages... Are there any plans of making Peopleimages open to outside photographers?

First. Thank you for a honest question and not just "angry noise" Scoopshot is by no means a place for professionals as it is now. As microstock was not 7 years ago. For now you should just get to learn mobile shooting and then when it matures, there will be a market share for sure.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 12:37
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS).  That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."

Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread.
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?

Quote from: Jaak on July 26, 2013, 09:31
Scoopshot is a startup for photos on demand. It means that smb. needs an image(s) and all stupid (sorry) persons over the world or some location trying to create image on request. A contributor will get 2, 5 USD. Scoopshot will get an another 2, 5 USD.
Now let`s think. How this 2,5 dollars are sustainable. Transport to asked-demanded location needs some expenses too.
It is not traditional microstock at this moment. It is not selling a volume. Yes, an agency owners will receive some money. And Yuri is on the side of owners.
Maybe Scoopshot owners trying to sell this startup after one year to Getty. With big profit. This is a question.
Maybe an owners turn a Scoopshoot into camera phone images stock agency too. But there is a Foap already.
Mobile phone camere never will catch a quality of dslr or even a good pocket camera. More glass and bigger sensor is a key for technical quality. Apps and filters helps a lot, but cameraphone is ok in good light. In editorial photo business a light conditions are very often bad.
Sorry about my English.

http://www.jaaknilson.ee

This post is good. You address major concerns. I agree that 5 USD per task is ridiculous, but so was 1 USD per download for Istockphoto.com back 7 years ago. We are looking at the birth of a new industry. It's not refined like microstock is today. Mistakes are ok, small income is ok, bad images are ok, it does not mean it is where it will end. You have to see the potential long term.

Quote from: fotoVoyager on July 26, 2013, 08:19
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!

I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.

Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.

I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.

The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.

I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?

Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!

I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.

Quote from: SLP_London on July 26, 2013, 07:25
Such a shame that 95% of this thread was wasted on bickering, quibbling and sniping. Yuri offered an opportunity for debate and it was wasted.

Regarding mobile phones, as I said in an earlier thread 'wake up and smell the coffee'.

And honestly, why on earth question Yuri's qualification and judgement of smart phone potential. Do you think he doesn't understand what competing with a DSLR requires?

Very True. I'm still here, but I have to focus on good questions and not "personal" attacks on my persona.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 26, 2013, 00:46
Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.

Yes. Good call Paul. Send me your email so I can send you that high res test shots from the upcoming mobile phones. Msg me.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 26, 2013, 00:07
Yuri, my questions:

So if micro is declining what segment of people do you see as having the greatest opportunity for being successful at mobile and in general with stock?

- General public mobile phone users?
- Microstockers who embrace mobile?
- Traditional macro people who embrace mobile?
- Other?

And given all of this seems to be tied to Getty is there any advantage to being an existing Getty contributor?

Us. We are. We will do excellent in the mobile arena. But it is back to "no photoshop" and shooting as is. Which is fun!

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 26, 2013, 00:01

Quote from: grsphoto on July 25, 2013, 23:55
I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 25, 2013, 23:28
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?

Well, I think if we don't get a reply after the fourth showing we can assume that Yuri has had no assurances from istock and that the site will soon fall apart at the seams...

A lot of things are going on on that front. Istock is in high gear in terms of improving their site.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 23:54

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 23:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 23:20

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 23:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.

"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I  be desperate to pursue the issue privately?

I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.

The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".

I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 23:46

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 23:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't.  It isn't the camera.  It's the planning.  It's the talent.  It's the releases.  It's the trust.  A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock.  And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.

Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.

Quote from: gbalex on July 25, 2013, 23:42

Quote from: EmberMike on July 25, 2013, 23:24

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 22:25I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.

No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.

My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.

So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.

I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?

You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves.

It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid.  Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes.  Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile.  Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed.

I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share.  You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value. 

Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?

Who said I was not in those meetings?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 23:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't.  It isn't the camera.  It's the planning.  It's the talent.  It's the releases.  It's the trust.  A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock.  And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

Wow Sean. You sound as conservative as the macrostock opposition back in 2005, when talking about microstock. Can't you see this? I mean. I could literarily take your last post and time-machine it back 7 years and it would fit perfectly as a criticism towards microstock. I mean, are you seriously going around purposefully trying to avoid the obvious facts?
Now here is a funny thing. You see I actually know Sean personally. We had a drink at a conference in California a good 4 years ago. My first remark to him was something of the likes of "Sean... you are not such a bad guy after all, just when you are on the forums". A few seconds later he confessed: "no, but don't tell anybody". So as of now. Officially. I would like to state that Sean L, is in fact a nice guy! He may not seem like it, but he is.

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 23:33

Quote from: EmberMike on July 25, 2013, 23:24

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 22:25I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.

No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.

My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.

So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.

I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?

Are you angry with me for leaving you behind? You mock me for thinking i'm significant and then blame me for not controlling the path of stock photography and leaving you behind...hhmmm. Not that is a good one

Quote from: EmberMike on July 25, 2013, 23:24

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 22:25I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.

No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.

My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.

So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.

I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?

Are you angry with me for leaving you behind? You mock me for thinking i'm significant and then blame me for not controlling the universe and leaving you behind...hhmmm. Not that is a good one

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 23:20

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 23:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.