"Qi2 is based on Magsafe" is not the same as "Apple is... contributing to a new version of Qi"
Your statement implies that Qi2 used Magsafe as a starting point or that it's primarily based on Magsafe. Your statement is inaccurate and would lead people to think that Qi2 was mostly an Apple design.
> Your statement implies that Qi2 used Magsafe as a starting point or that it's primarily based on Magsafe. Your statement is inaccurate and would lead people to think that Qi2 was mostly an Apple design.
You'd be wrong, though. Apple is on the WPC membership and has heavy influence over their spec definitions. They do this with many standards. They sit on the standards body as contributing members, and influence the specifications in ways they see as beneficial. They did this with USB (especially USB-C), they do this with MIPI standards, and they do this with WPC.
When standards organizations move too slow (which, is pretty much always), companies like Apple will move to make proprietary versions of a thing usually based on drafts of standards that are taking too long.
I think their point was that the wireless MagSafe was basically a copy-paste of Qi, so it wasn't "mostly an Apple design" to begin with. "Qi2 is a copy-paste of MagSafe" (or "Qi2 is based on MagSafe") makes it sound a bit like they threw out the original Qi in favor of Apple's completely home-grown alternative, which comes with inaccurate connotations of who actually did the important work.
It's subjective how important the history is and how important Apple's contributions are, but that seems to be what they were getting at.
Your statement implies that Qi2 used Magsafe as a starting point or that it's primarily based on Magsafe. Your statement is inaccurate and would lead people to think that Qi2 was mostly an Apple design.