Actually I think open source supports the author's point. Lots of open source projects are cool. Not very many make money. In fact sitting here I can't even think of one. Okay, Red Hat made money for a while.
The exchange is also somewhat more intellectually honest- maybe not totally egalitarian peership, but more on the level of even & honest exchange, rather than dumbing down a complex situation idea & gussying it up as product, as salvation. Which this article pitches as the nee-plus-ultra.
The truth is inbetween. But the article totally stomps over truthfulness & intellect & engagement in favor of it's own preferred idea of selling.
The main difference between open / closed source is that the IP is or isn't sold for a licensing fee itself. If the latter is true, you need an alternate business model. One alternative is selling something tangential to your project: typically expertise in installing, operating, maintaining the code. Consultancy. Another alternative is leveraging open source software to sell a service: hosting, CRM, managed services, social media, etc. etc.
All of a sudden, open source becomes very profitable.