Most people couldn't tell you what DRM is, or what, exactly, an operating system does. The author said Apple presents an image of being open, not the actuality of it. And to most people, that's probably what they see.
Anyone who doesn't know what DRM is doesn't even know to think about open vs. closed. They don't know what proprietary is either. They still might know about Apple's zealously guarded secrecy.
Also, if they buy an iPod and start using iTunes, they find out what DRM is the hard way.
The author said that Apple presents an image of being open, and in the same sentence, said this is ironic, since they are not open. So what are you objecting to?
I object to the idea that they project an image of being open at all. They don't. They project an image of guarded secrecy. There's no irony in them not being open, it's just them doing what they've always done.
When I say (and, I think, the author) "image the company projects," I mean by marketing. If their marketing said the company was run by angry iguanas, then it would be accurate to say they project an image of being run by angry iguanas, regardless of the truth.
Does their marketing project open? I've never seen that. I have seen millions of people wondering what product was going to ship at the next wwdc, and all of the crazy (sometimes legally enforced) silence around that.
