I like the remote control but think the added cost greatly limits the market. Shopping centers, car park lots, etc, do not need any of this advanced functionality, nor a dimmer. They simply need on at dusk, off at dawn (or on a timer -off that's already wired into their lighting circuits)
Therefore, pricing will depend on your target market, existing products you directly compete against.
Not so sure the master/slave arrangement is necessarily desirable either, generally when selling to a business that needs continual uptime (which is the case with lighting), they need field-serviceable units that any random Joe Sixpack with a basic electrician's ability can maintain, with no instructions. Then again it comes back to the target market, for non-permanent installation or when an engineer is on-site, let alone using the lights, more features are a selling point.
Although integration is nice, for this price I think it needs be more modular, not having the driver and all LEDs on one PCB. While vertical fins would be more costly, does it need to be so rectangular, slim and wide? Granted it gives more fin area to space the LEDs out a bit but it looks like there is a lot of wiggle room to rearrange them, decreasing heatsink width.
Also if it's meant for outdoor applications, much wider spaced vertical fins will collect less debris. Lights attract insects, insects attract spiders, spiders make webs, leaves stick to webs as do insects, etc, etc. I think it only needs be small for portable interior applications, or perhaps emergency exit lighting above doorways.
I've gone off on several tangents, to know if it's a good design/price tradeoff we'll need to know what it competes against and what advantage the target market would have to entice a purchase. Maintenance cost reduction for intermittent use portable lighting isn't so much as for permanent installations but it seems best for intermittent use portable lighting.
