I have heard many times that people think video is replacing photography because of programs like Vine and such. However, in my personal opinion this helps photography - or the good photographers (I am not one). Here is why.
We live in a world of instant gratification. I don't think I really need to explain why. And here is the crux of my argument - what is quicker than a picture? Nothing! it occurs at the speed of light when someone views it. Therefore it is the most instantly gratifying thing ever.
There is a caveat however - you must be able to tell the story of the video in one frame. This is where my mention of "skilled photographers" comes in. Only the ones who can capture raw emotion, story and context in a single frame will be relevant. Everyone else will fall by the wayside. If I can understand the context and emotion in .000004 seconds by seeing a pictrue as oppsed to watching a 30 second video then I would much rather see the picture.
Thoughts? Obviously in some situations videos will succeed - sports higlights and other things that can't be captured in a single frame.