The argument seems to be that MOOCs are the online equivalent of lectures. Therefore, since lectures do not seem to hold much financial value to customers, MOO

The argument seems to be that MOOCs are the online equivalent of lectures. Therefore, since lectures do not seem to hold much financial value to customers, MOOCs will not either, since they consist mostly of online lectures. I think you misunderstand the author's argument. Daniel is actually a professor at something very close to the well-rounded online university you describe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Télé-université http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Télé-université I think he's arguing that by keeping the content closed to all but registered users, the MOOC's would seem to be saying that they believe the lectures are the crown jewels that need to be protected from onlookers. He believes this is silly, and instead (apart from moments of cynicism when he worries that universities merely sell credentials) believes that the value distance learning can offer --- and charge for --- is the same "full package" that you describe. He's claiming that if the people running the MOOC's properly understood this, rather than restricting access to the content of their courses, they'd be making better use of their online content (the part that is very difficult to charge for) to recruit new students. I suspect that he's also motivated by the side benefit that this would provide free educational tools to those unable to 'attend' without doing any harm to the MOOC.