The problem with the article is that they're obfuscating the fact that this does not produce light. It's basically a smarter way to poke a hole through your ceiling. It's not a device that converts energy into light.
Rather odd thing to say. How it works is explained in the second paragraph after the intro :
"So how does it work? Simple refraction of sunlight, explains Moser, as he fills an empty two-litre plastic bottle."
I agree that it does involve poking a hole through the ceiling, but the thing's simplicity belies its utility and what may seem "obvious" after the fact doesn't make it any less significant an invention.
I saw that sentence with the word "refraction" and I wasn't sure if it was the whole idea or if refraction was just one part of a clever design to enhance the effects of another artificial light source.
That's why I felt it was misleading. Looking at the article again, though, it's probably clearer than I originally thought it was.
