I've got a 4 and would rate it 3.5 stars out of 5. The buttons are bit cheesy. They could have been made to be smoother. The wheel is also a bit cheesy compared to other wheels on other products on the market. Other than that it's good. The surface is very good and responds well. The pens themselves are somewhat ugly. Designed by some technogeek with no artistic ability at all. I find them a bit too fat for my liking.

Still though, the guy in China, who deserves access to the market as much as anyone, will not be able to shoot various ethnic groups very easily. It's easy for me, living in a large city, to shoot almost any ethnic group I want. It costs a lot that is for sure but I can it. Or does it matter. What I really wonder is what people are willing to finally settle for as a low enough income. That's what it comes down to really. When someone can't make enough to make it worth his while they quit and go to something else. Like everything I'm sure this business is self limiting. Eventually most of the rabbits die off and the cycle starts again.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 10, 2010, 11:55

YouTube is quite a success, I think.  It could be a "fad" but it seems to be for real.

You're missing my point: I was talking about commercial stock video, which YouTube isn't.

Again I think the place for this is in the macro agencies where decent sales prices can make for a viable business model. YouTube as far as I have heard is a total money loser. Sure it has millions of users and videos but it makes NO money. That does not make it a success.

Quote from: Zeus on February 09, 2010, 15:16

...
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.

iStock was purchased in Feb 2006 for $50M. Getty was purchased 2.1/2 years later for $2.4B, when iStock annual revenue was already eclipsing its purchase price.
Yes, there is a major disparity in the price. iStock was certainly a bargain, but I'm not so sure Getty was.

Good points for sure, but would you say that iStock increased a factor of 10 in that period of time? I doubt it, did but even if this is so that would make 500 million, still a small overall percentage of the companies value.

[

Assuming that Getty has two revenue streams (RF/FM and microstock), overall revenue was (at best) flat in 2009, and microstock made them $200M, it's fair to assume their RF/RM income stream decreased by (at least) $200M last year. That's not "flat or decreasing a bit". Furthermore, Getty was purchased for $2.4B in mid-2008, which pegs that drop at more than 8% of its valuation.

Nobody said Getty was going to close or "bet the company" on iStock, but with this lastest microstock offering one can guess they're aiming to increase their exposure in the only stock photography market that's growing.

It never has to be one or the other. My only real point. Every photographer produces images that are suitable for the other market, Whatever that is.

Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.

. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?

Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps  the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.

@Donding,
I thought about it a bit more, and I realised that unfortunately, if you're doing it this way, you're not going to make much of a difference. Neither will I for that matter.
You're only going to hurt yourself, don't do it, Donding!
For this to work we need the big players, experienced photographers with thousands of great images to step in.
But of course, these are the people who make a lot of money and have to consider things very carefully.
Wait until they decide what's best to do. Then it's our turn to follow in their steps.  Just wait a little bit longer please! Give yourself a bit more time!

Doing what you feel is the right thing doesn't mean you need to wait until someone with more clout goes first. Likely they won't. They may in fact have sweetheart deals making all this fuss irrelevant to them. It's simply deciding if you are being taken advantage of and then deciding if you want to do something about it.

Quote from: Zeus on February 02, 2010, 18:27

You should scream for sure but I doubt they will hear anything. Until people, in large numbers, begin to pull images off the site, diddly will happen. I mean actually take the images and remove them, not just stop submitting.  But not enough key players will do this. After all a little is better than nothing most everyone always says. "Oh but I make xyz% of my income from them" blah blah blah.

Not true. They climbed down on the both the subscription commissions and also on them counting towards Ranking. This is MUCH more important and no compromise will be acceptable. We want to be paid our rightful commissions.

I certainly wish the best on this one. But really the reality is I doubt you'll get much more than what was presented initially as a red herring or nothing at all.

Subscriptions are the bane of all photographers. I can't imagine why anyone would like the them.

Quote

The agencies will refuse all kinds of things for needing a property release, an old grain silo in a field with a farm house for example, but they don't really need one.

Exactly. It doesn't matter whether a PR is legally needed for some of these buildings...the agencies will refuse the shots anyway...their game, their rules.

I remember a specific example a while back...it was a gorgeous photo of an old farm building in a field of yellow, lots of great colors going on. Rejected because it needed a property release. The person who took was on public property.

Based on what I have seen happen in the past, I'm going to say her photo would need a PR, especially since it's a currently operating mill. If old abandoned shacks in the middle of nowhere need a release, I'm thinking this would too. Not that I think it makes any sense.

We're not talking any agency we are talking about Alamy here. Way different rules.

Quote from: Zeus on January 29, 2010, 12:53

That's the thing, you wouldn't need a release for Alamy if you submit as an L image with no release indicated. It can still be used for editorial which although not a huge market, can still place value on such images.

Not sure that is right, Zeus.  Isn't there a restriction on editing editorial?  I think you can only crop ... maybe a little contrast or sharpening???

Perhaps that is true. I would submit without all the filtration. I have tried all kinds of filtration and although I love it, it never sells.

Filtration is cool but generally detracts from sales. But this has never stopped me from doing it. However a shot like that is better off at someplace like Alamy.