I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.
And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.
$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.
So $100 x 20 = $2,000
or
1 house at $2,000
who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?
Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ?
Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.
So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.