The whole AI thing is very sad for artists who have spent a lifetime honing their design, illustration and photography skills. Particularly since these AI programs learned to make their "art" by sampling the creative output of millions of genuine artists, living and dead. I certainly understand that time and technology will never stand still and many previous skilled professions have been rendered obsolete in the past, but this seems particularly devastating for artists, writers and other creatives.
AI also seems poised to eliminate many other mid-level, well-paying jobs such as in the tech industry,  further eroding the middle class and increasing the wealth gap. 
Welcome to the brave new world.

I already pay for an all apps subscription. Can I use the single app bonus to get a discount?

Since the advent of the computer in graphic design/advertising/photography there have been several waves of technological advances that have killed off various highly skilled professions. Typesetters, filmstrippers, old school photo retouchers, etc. Old jobs disappear and new ones appear. It's tough when you're on the losing end but inevitable. What is more worrying to me, is the gradual devaluing of all creative work, from music, to photography, to design. As time goes on the big Internet players seem increasingly determined to give away our work for free while making millons for themselves.

It has always been a side thing for me. I'm not a photographer, I just sell vectors, either rejected client work or things that I draw for fun. I still make some money, but less than half of what I made 3 years ago, despite doubling my portfolio size (which is still small compared to most on here). One of the factors to consider is the considerable amount of time it takes to upload and keyword images. With more than half of sales now being 10¢, could that time be better spent elsewhere?

Crestock went bankrupt. Nobody will see any money from them, not that there ever was much.

But I have bought a couple of my own vector images from Shutterstock because I had a hard drive crash and lost the original art and I have a monthly subsription. And yes I got the royalty.

The situation with Shutterstock is far from unique. This is just the latest example (and a small one at that) of the basic problem that plagues an economy based on the stock market. Investors demand increased profit year over year which is a physical impossibility. To make just the same massive profits as the previous year is seen as a failure. So they only way to achieve this constant growth, even in the short term, is to continuously cut costs. Of course they never think to cut executive salaries, so the only thing left is the low level employees.

This is why all of North America's manufacturing jobs started moving to Asia in the 1980's, followed quickly by customer service, printing, etc. The result was massive profit increases for company owners and investors but the slow erosion and evenutually complete destruction of the middle class. The fact that there was an immediate drop in the quality of the goods produced and that well-paid, skilled workers were replaced by sweat shops with appalling human rights abuses, including child labour and virtual slavery, were ignored in the race for ever-higher shareholder profits.

This is, of course, a short-sighted business plan, because when no-one has a job, who will buy the goods and services? Which is why Philip Morris, Mcdonalds, Walmart, etc. are trying to get kids around the world hooked on cigarrettes, fast food, and cheap disposable goods.

Time to break out the torches and pitchforks.

I buy a lot of stock as well as contribute. Some of my clients are very budget-conscious (a nice way of saying cheap) and once they get word that Adobe offers free stock images they will never want to pay for stock again.

Microstock killed traditional stock. Giving away images for free will kill microstock.

This is particularly disheartening from a company that makes most of its money from the creative community. Since the advent of the internet there has been a continuous push to devalue the work of creative people — graphic designers, artists, musicians, photographers — but I did not expect Adobe to be a part of it. When everything is free online, who is going to pay all those monthly fees for Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign?

This is the same short-sighted thinking that made a lot of money for wealthy shareholders in the short term, but destroyed the North American manufacturing industry in the long term.

Creative people need to get paid for their work. It's as simple as that.
Try telling a plumber that he needs to fix your toilet for free because it will be great exposure and maybe someone will pay him next time.

The shots my clients are usually looking for are happy family shots, often with children, either at home or outdoors. It is a struggle to find great, well-lit, naturally posed shots like this at any of the agencies that aren't strictly white people. Stocksy definitely offers more diversity, but I have had difficulty finding these sort of traditional happy family images. Maybe I'm wrong and need to look again, but it seems to me that Stocksy is more focussed on younger, hipper, non-traditional images. Which is great, just not what my clients need.

I thought I would just add that I was pleasantly surprised by Shutterstock in July. Yes, there were a lot of 10 - 18 cent sales, but I also had quite a few 85 cent subscripion sales and $4.35 on-demand sales. In the end it was my second best month this year. Microstock is just a side gig for me and I have a relatively small portfolio of mostly high-quality vectors, so I know I'm not typical, but I would be interested if anyone else had similar results for July.

Also, I'll throw in my 2 cents for the people who are discussing where images are bought these days, as I buy a lot of stock as well as sell. Most people I know in advertising are still buying from iStock, Shutterstock, Adobestock, and Getty if the budget allows. Personally I have looked for images at Stocksy quite a few times and never yet found what I needed, which is usually culturally-diverse lifestyle images. I need  fun, natural-feeling, unposed images and for god's sake, please don't make the models look at the camera.

I thought I would just add that I was pleasantly surprised by Shutterstock in July. Yes, there were a lot of 10 - 18 cent sales, but I also had quite a few 85 cent subscripion sales and $4.35 on-demand sales. In the end it was my second best month this year. Microstock is just a side gig for me and I have a relatively small portfolio of mostly high-quality vectors, so I know I'm not typical, but I would be interested if anyone else had similar results for July.

It looks great and it's easy to use.
Besides contributing, I buy a lot of stock.
Right away I spotted an image I have purchased in the past.
The search function works well, but when I am looking for images, I very often use the "find similar images" button that most sites have.
It's great that you can easilly see the whole shoot, but sometimes the models or the setting aren't quite right.
If possible, that would be a good feature to add.

I would have to disagree with most on here. I get twice as many sales on Adobe Stock than I ever did at Fotolia.

I have no problem with the design.
I never really liked Fotolia.
Plus, sales have improved substantially which is all that really matters.

I make artboards whatever size I feel like at the time and have never had any issues.
Anywhere from 8.5" x 11" to 11" x 17" or anything in-between. In micro stock, size doesn't matter; they are vectors after all.
The main thing is to make sure your jpg's are a minimum of 5000 pixels wide on the longest side.
Vertical or horizontal does not matter.
Are you sure you don't have other issues, like open paths?

Not only is this strategy not good for contributors, it also makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to sort through the glut of poor quality images to find the good stuff. This emphasis on pleasing shareholders in the short term rather than thinking about what is best for the company in the long term is a problem across the business world. It all comes down to short-sighted greed.

Pretty solid July for me.
After steadily declining sales all through 2017, sales have been up for me at Shutterstock since January.
Not quite what they were in 2016, but getting closer.

Personally, I think the poor quality of many of these new images is the biggest issue. They accept so much garbage these days that it is often hard to sort through to find the good stuff. Sometimes when I am searching I'll see 25 slightly different variations of the same crappy shot that no-one in their right mind would ever buy. I see vectors up there that look like they were drawn by two-year-olds. If you can't draw with a pencil and paper you have no business selling vector illustrations.

Still a pretty solid month for me, but down a bit from March.

I am a graphic designer/illustrator rather than a photographer and I buy a lot of stock images. What I usually look for are natural, unposed looking shots in real environments. Shopping, at home, in nature, eating, exercising, etc. – lifestyle. Most of your shots look posed in a studio. I would suggest getting your models out in the real world and acting naturally. I rarely buy shots where the model is looking at the camera.

I am a vector guy as well and my sales have been up dramatically across the board since January.
Even Alamy is doing well.
On Alamy, make sure you have enough keywords (50) and fill in all of the criteria so that your images have good or optimized visibility.

I found that my sales have increased since syncing. I still submit through Fotolia as I found some issues with the Adobe submission system. Of course Fotolia isn't great either. Maybe I should see if Adobe has improved since some people in these comments seem to prefer it.

This is just another way of devaluing creative content.
I don't know what the rates will be, but I know it will be a lot less than an agency hiring a photographer the traditional way.
Sounds like the equivalent of the minimum wage, part-time, no benefit jobs in other industries.

After 6 months of steadily declining sales, February was pretty decent and March appears pretty good so far too.
Anyone else experiencing this?

I like the new layout, but the bar graph shows me at glance that my earnings are basically half of what they were a year ago.