What he's talking about is cost-based pricing and it is usually a bad idea. For those who don't know, it essentially involves taking the costs associated with p

What he's talking about is cost-based pricing and it is usually a bad idea. For those who don't know, it essentially involves taking the costs associated with producing a product (in his case, his time) and marking up the cost to some amount above that to ensure sufficient margins. The fact is that when people buy a product they don't really care about what it cost you to produce, they care about what value they can extract from it. A classic example of this is the fragrance market, where people routinely pay $80 for a 2.5 ounce bottle of cologne that cost less than two dollars to produce. They do this because they imagine it will make them more attractive, so to them, $80 is a small price to pay and don't really care about the markup. Some businesses can mark software up higher and higher and increase sales and profits because they are providing a large value proposition in the form of huge time savings, more sales, etc. Because he only mentioned the time he invested and the existing bottom-of-the-barrel pricing as the reasons all software shops should raise prices, I have to say his logic is mostly flawed.