I think there's a separation between openness (freedom) vs openness (transparency).
Android is open as in freedom, you can install it anywhere you want, you can modify the source code, you can build stuff on top of it, you can root it, etc.
But it is not open in transparency as Joe points out. They are not open about what they are working on. His arguments against Android stem from that. The not allowing read/write access and the latest and greatest all relate to the fact that Google doesn't want to be transparent with the future of Android.
Actually, the iPhone dev toolkits and prerelease announcements are pretty good at providing feature information for iOS developers. No they're not available years in advance, but it's still more than Google. I think iOS is probably more transparent in this sense.
Still, I think neither are completely open and a misappropriation of terms has just lead to 'open' being more marketing bullshit.
It's always easier to develop for a system you have the code for, even if you can't modify it.
With iOS, you get more time to fix your code, but sometimes you have to speculate why the system works they way it does; with Android, the SDK drops later, giving you less time to code, but it's easier since you can find out why the system behave the way it does.
Android is open as in freedom, you can install it anywhere you want, you can modify the source code, you can build stuff on top of it, you can root it, etc.
But it is not open in transparency as Joe points out. They are not open about what they are working on. His arguments against Android stem from that. The not allowing read/write access and the latest and greatest all relate to the fact that Google doesn't want to be transparent with the future of Android.
Either way, iOS is neither.