The open source from your list largely falls under #1. They didn't open source their primary product, but rather their complements. That is sustainable, whereas #2 is not when a permissive license is involved.

Strategy #1 is self-interested and doesn't require any real zealotry and survives the harvesting stage just fine.

Open sourcing your core product with a permissive license is generally going to be at odds with business goals at some point, and if you're in business, often the thing to give is the license.

Ah yes, Apple, which famously open sources its software ...

Only Red Hat on this list comes even close to open sourcing a significant percentage of its stuff.

I personally prefer to let Apple have it, it's "open source" all right.

If you want Free Software, then feel free to use something more potent than merely an "open source" license the next time you release something.