The efficient market hypothesis is something different, that one just says that prices reflect all available information. I was talking about competition which should ensure that there are no profits, i.e. that consumers do not pay more than the costs of production, including risk adjustment and development costs and so on, but that are mostly uneccesary details for this discussion.
You can see how this interpretation clashes with another dogma of economics: that the price of sth is the price that someone is willing to pay for it.
There is no conflict here. On the one hand the price can be as high as what customers are willing to pay, but on the other hand competitors should show up in order to take some of your profits by offering a lower price.
I read your message as saying that this software should be cheaper (arguing working markets but I think it is really a moral argument).
Sure, there is also a moral aspect to this, overcharging your customers in order to be able to relax on the beach is not the most ethical thing, but the economy cares relatively little about ethics. So the best one can do is to hope that market forces will correct this.
Another argument against 90% being a market failure is that this will inspire competition of copycats with lower margin over time. Corrections and competition are not instant.
Yes, I did not spell this out precisely enough, it is of course only a market failure if it persist. But given that many of those projects seem relatively simple, how long should one wait before declaring a market failure? Maybe there are already cheaper alternatives but people do not know about them? That is itself a market failure.