His point is that they could have made more money, both by charging more per GH and by having more customers as a result of a slower increase in difficulty scaring less people off. I'm not sure I totally agree with this point, would it even occur to many of the people who ended up buying 60 GH rigs to buy 10 smaller ones had they not had the option? With that said, there is clearly a good business in selling smaller units to users while they are profitable then selling progressively larger units to the same customers as difficulty climbs.
Granted, their pricing has not been optimal. But, the rise in difficulty is not under Avalon's control. Avalon first priced their units as if BFL was going to deliver in "Two Weeks(TM)" and that turned out to be too cheap given BFL's delays. They then priced their 3rd batch a lot higher and now people are asking for refunds because they fear it won't mine enough BTC to recoup it's cost. This fear is driven by Avalon's delays, BFL & ASICMiner delivering, and Bitfury & KNCMiner making good progress.
Avalon needed to sell their first batch of chips, and that batch had a minimum size. I don't think it really matters if they put 20 chips in a box or 200 chips in a box other than it is easier to ship 300 boxes than it is to ship 3000. Given they were trying to sell a fixed number of chips, the demand exceeded the supply so people would buy 1 66GH/s or 11 6GH/s devices.
Also, it has since become clear that Avalon's core competency is in designing and producing chips, not devices.