I think the efficiency of markets is based around marginal costs and benefits, not absolute costs and benefits. The cost of goods are set by looking at the intersection of the people willing and able to supply the good, and the set of people willing to pay for the good. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
But the point is that you've found an equilibrium in the system with the current price, current suppliers, and current customers. There are customers would would have happily paid more. There are people who WOULD have bought the good if it cost less, but it doesn't so they didn't. There are people who are happily supplying it and making mad bank. There are people who are supplying it and making a razor-thin margin. There are people who WOULD supply it if the available price were higher, so they're not supplying it right now. The price is an efficient equilibrium point, but it's not the global arbiter of value.
I understand when it comes to something that is normally bought and sold, but I guess it changes for me when it comes to something that is normally given away for free and never sold, except as part of a larger system such as OS X or enterprise Linux.
But the point is that you've found an equilibrium in the system with the current price, current suppliers, and current customers. There are customers would would have happily paid more. There are people who WOULD have bought the good if it cost less, but it doesn't so they didn't. There are people who are happily supplying it and making mad bank. There are people who are supplying it and making a razor-thin margin. There are people who WOULD supply it if the available price were higher, so they're not supplying it right now. The price is an efficient equilibrium point, but it's not the global arbiter of value.