Yes. And, if you notice, also plastic used for its case, while sturdy and resistent, and nicely put together, was just as plain as it can be. "Unintresting" as it can be.
This while the iPod was already in the market and already being credited for being nice and beautiful.

2x the power per unit brightness, or 2x brighter?

Peter

When Microsoft doesn't want to compete they'll still do something to be disruptive. Like releasing things for free in hopes of destabilizing an established market.

They wanted to compete. They just didn't know how to do so while at the same time differentiating themselves enough to matter. They also recognized that simply throwing money at the problem was not likely going to change things in the short term.

Or maybe it's because black backgrounds are easier on the eyes, since you're not staring into a giant light source.

Only in a dark room.

Dark backgrounds with light coloured text are an enormous strain on the eyes in daylight or normal lit-room ambient lighting. Most dark background websites or blogs are a complete usability disaster.

That said, the Zune and Windows Phone seem to compensate with very large and clear typefaces. This is must and it's part of what makes the UI work as well as it does.

Black text on white or light-coloured background is by far the easiest in the eyes.

Try reading an all-black background site for 10 to 15 minutes and then go walk around your normally lit house for a while. Notice anything disorienting?

It doesn't matter if the room is dark, or not. The screen is still a light source (barring various e-ink technologies).


You'll forgive me, of course, if I don't take your word for gospel on this. Of course, your opinion is shared by many, but the opposite opinion is also held by many, too. Don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of dark-background websites/blogs that are usability disasters, but the useability issues generally neither start, nor end there. If it's anecdotes you want, then if I had a dime for every light-background/dark-foreground website I've seen with usability issues, I could retire in comfort.


Maybe, maybe not. I'll agree that's true for printed dead-tree material (hey, there are even studies backing it up), but it's certainly not something you can accept as fact where computer monitors are concerned.

For example, I'm currently typing this message in a black-text on white background vim window, and I find myself frequently looking away to other places, because it's too damn bright (and no, I don't have the monitor brightness cranked). Yet I can stare at a printed sheet of white paper for hours without the same problem. I also don't have the same issues when working in my default light-on-dark colour scheme.


No. I spend 8 hours a day in the shell and vim, with a light-on-dark colour scheme. I've never noticed anything disorienting when getting up to walk around. In my previous jobs, I worked in offices where the only lighting was via 40-60 watt desk lamps. Overhead lights were off, and windows were covered in heavy fabric, to prevent screen glare. For the last year, I've been working in an office with all the overhead lights on. (It's a refreshing change, even if they are flourescent tubes. :)) In both cases, I find my light-on-dark colour scheme far easier on the eyes, and less fatiguing, than the inverse.

As you know, I disagree that MS has a golden rule to apply in all occasions, as you seem to suggest.
See, companies give signals to each others, on what they can and cannot do. It is part of the strategy.

Of course, mine is just my best educated guess.

I'm not suggesting that MS has a golden rule, but rather just looking to the past at their actions. MS seems very resistive to change.

Typically too, OLEDs can't go as bright as an LCM - which is one reason why they're a pain to see in sunlight. OLEDs often top out around 300ish nits, whereas LCMs are often 500+