The continual focus on completion rates is rather misguided. Like others here, I have taken many a MOOC, and consider the experience useful and successful. I have also never completed a single MOOC, doing little of the homework in most cases. I have no use for more pieces of papers, and really no time to do homework, but I get what I want, which is an overview of a subject area and some entertainment while doing the chores. Learning about behavioural economics from Dan Ariely's course was one of the most useful things I did in 2013, and I am independently learning more about the field.

Obviously there are issues the MOOC providers need to resolve. It's not clear how they will make money, and if they really want to go the volume model they probably need to lower the level of the courses offered -- more Udemy than Udacity -- or offer some kind of recognised accreditation so that students can justify devoting the time required to really learn material. In the language of startups, with which I'm sure we're all familiar, they haven't found product-market fit. It may be the case that people like me are not considered useful by MOOC providers -- I'm unlikely to ever give them money. That's fair enough and I have no problem with it.

I find articles like the one linked rather annoying. It's clear that MOOCs are a thing, and what we really need is discussion of how they're going to integrate with the educational landscape, not sniping from the sidelines. In this case it's ok, as it's a journalistic organisation reporting on what happened. However I read the same thing from academics, which is a real shame. Many seem to get joy from the failures of MOOCs, no doubt because they see them as a threat to their livelihood. I'd rather see some engagement with the issue.