The content is correct in that pricing apps is complicated and there are factors that people don't often consider. And that support costs should be a factor.
But nowhere does it prove the should be paying more. Maybe the developers could charge more, but it doesn't even prove they should do that. It just opens up the possibility.
And I think that ShareMouse is overpriced. $25 per computer? And his reason is that he wants to pay his developers well? That's a stupid reason. He should be looking for market equilibrium instead, then. He should be looking for the point where he makes the most money, instead of just picking a price and sticking to it. Even in a professional setup I would choose Synergy over his price, despite the manual setup (took me like 10 minutes last time) and lack of file sharing (the drives are network shared anyhow in any situation I've been in).
Also, if the claims of his page are true, then support cost should be nearly nil. He claims the thing automatically sets itself up, including monitor configuration. But if it fails to do that and you need support, that's even worse than not having it be automatic in the first place. If he's really having so many support tickets about it, it's not worth the money anyhow.
One of the major points raised is that pricing is largely elastic; i.e. raising or lowering your prices doesn't affect revenue. This may mean in some circumstances the correct price is the one that is so high that it leads to just one customer.
If it is the case that the pricing for this product is highly / almost completely elastic then a high price makes perfect sense. Just look at Apple's pricing strategies.
No, it said that for some products, the pricing was elastic. And under those circumstances, it still might not make sense to charge as much as you can. Even though you avoid support costs like that, it means fewer people are using and talking about your product. If people aren't telling their friends, you're missing out on a lot of free advertising.
There's a lot that goes into pricing, and most of it is not obvious at all.
Who care how many people are using your product? The purpose of a business is to make profit for its owners. I'd rather have a business that had one customer that made 10x profit than one that had 100M customers and and made 1x profit.
The content is correct in that pricing apps is complicated and there are factors that people don't often consider. And that support costs should be a factor.
But nowhere does it prove the should be paying more. Maybe the developers could charge more, but it doesn't even prove they should do that. It just opens up the possibility.
And I think that ShareMouse is overpriced. $25 per computer? And his reason is that he wants to pay his developers well? That's a stupid reason. He should be looking for market equilibrium instead, then. He should be looking for the point where he makes the most money, instead of just picking a price and sticking to it. Even in a professional setup I would choose Synergy over his price, despite the manual setup (took me like 10 minutes last time) and lack of file sharing (the drives are network shared anyhow in any situation I've been in).
Also, if the claims of his page are true, then support cost should be nearly nil. He claims the thing automatically sets itself up, including monitor configuration. But if it fails to do that and you need support, that's even worse than not having it be automatic in the first place. If he's really having so many support tickets about it, it's not worth the money anyhow.