I'm getting a iPhone, but I don't see how they are calling it a smartphone. It they have some type of kick ass office suite to go with it, and some other type of business apps, I would agree. But they don't have either of those for the Macs, so I doubt they do.
They aren't calling it a smartphone. Other people are.
And for reviewing on a phone PDF is just fine. I wouldn't really want to edit a presentation on a phone in any case. Minor edits to excel and word seem OK but I personally wouldn't do it.
VNC - If you complaining about google apps on a small screen this would be even worse getting another computers full desktop.
The difference being that a lite-office type app can be made to work on a compact device and has been done for maybe five years, without having to resort to AJAX hackery, needing a network and such. I'm not saying AJAX is bad, but if Apple really was concerned about not overloading the carrier's networks, then they will have to allow a native app for that. AJAX really isn't an ideal for that task.
At least using the network for VNC is justifiable, it's intrinsic to the service.
They aren't calling it a smartphone. Other people are.
I don't think it's necessary to use a certain word to convey the same idea. What they say tries to gives the impression that it is an extension to the smartphone idea - a supersmartphone if you will.
And for reviewing on a phone PDF is just fine. I wouldn't really want to edit a presentation on a phone in any case. Minor edits to excel and word seem OK but I personally wouldn't do it.
I don't think it's necessary to use a certain word to convey the same idea. What they say tries to gives the impression that it is an extension to the smartphone idea - a supersmartphone if you will.
I disagree. Apple is saying that this is a revolutionary device, not an extension to existing technology. I tend to agree. It does not go down the smart phone path (in fact its does a lot less than what most smart phones do). It goes down a completely new path. This is a new class of product. It bridges the UI and ease of use of a desktop operating system with the functionality of mobile devices. It's a paradigm shift.
Never fear. The iPhone specs say it will automatically transition to wifi if available, and it was in fact using wifi during Steve's demo.
I would be quite surprised if a version if iWork was not made available for the iPhone. In fact, this may be why we haven't heard much about iWork lately. If the iPhone had Pages, Keynote and Numbers adapted for the small screen I think it would be of great interest. And imagine if your Documents folder was automatically synched through iTunes!
Really, this is such an obvious idea that I'd be very surprised if Steve and friends haven't already thought it through and implemented it. The iPhone is still a great device without it, but that would really take people to the next level. That could also be one of the "top secret" features that they don't want Microsoft copying with Windows Mobile. The nice fellow who went through the keynote with a fine-toothed comb looking for features pointed out a "Personal" synch tab that was never shown; this is what they're doing with it.
Incidentally, why is it that there is no synch via WiFi? The answer is so obvious I'm a little surprised it was overlooked. The iPhone needs to be charged, probably on a daily basis like my Sidekick does. What more natural thing than to take the iPhone home, put it in its charger/dock and have it automatically synch and charge. And that ensures that short of extremely long talk times, you'll never run out of battery.
If we ever get little atomic power plants for portable devices, the iPhone will be able to sync via WiFi. Until then, that little cable saves your phone by keeping it charged.
My whole point is we don't know that. We only know some of the things it does have. The Quartz and QuartzCore frameworks are only about 10+ MByte on Intel. Easy to fit on the phone.
I disagree. Apple is saying that this is a revolutionary device, not an extension to existing technology.
They can say that but apart from the UI and Multitouch, it patently isn't anything new or revolutionary. It's an expensive smartphone with limited functionality.
Possibly but then they had icons for things that didn't work yet on the demo model so why not add a Preview.app icon too?
And why not a Terminal.app and and iWork.app and.... on the front screen. I'm not saying all of these will be there but there was no reason to demo them. They were not the story. I wouldn't necessarily expect 'Preview.app'. You should be able to view PDF's in Safari if nothing else. I would also guess directly in Mail messages, where you're likely to get them in any case.
If every app is on the front screen then you have the crap UI of other phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
They can say that but apart from the UI and Multitouch, it patently isn't anything new or revolutionary. It's an expensive smartphone with limited functionality.
For most of us it is the UI that IS a revolution. This is main area where current phone just don't cut it. Of course you can become an expert and use a phone efficiently but why should you.
Never fear. The iPhone specs say it will automatically transition to wifi if available, and it was in fact using wifi during Steve's demo.
I think it was actually cabled up with a direct cable all of the time it was demoed. I'd be very surprised if it transitions to Wi-Fi for calls using SIP. That's the kind of thing that would be shouted from the rooftops and the kind of thing that carriers hate. Most of the carriers in the UK here have disabled VoIP on the Nokia range of phones that are capable of acting as SIP phones (Nokia N80ie, E61 etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis
I would be quite surprised if a version if iWork was not made available for the iPhone. In fact, this may be why we haven't heard much about iWork lately. If the iPhone had Pages, Keynote and Numbers adapted for the small screen I think it would be of great interest. And imagine if your Documents folder was automatically synched through iTunes!
It's a lot of work to adapt a desktop app for a small screen and the iWork apps consume a lot of screen real estate with their multiple inspectors and drawers.
My Documents folder is 120GB so I hope it doesn't get synced. I'd rather they used iSync than iTunes too but apparently they aren't.
It annoys me immensely that one of Apple's worst applications is the home for syncing devices and they're letting iSync wither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis
Really, this is such an obvious idea that I'd be very surprised if Steve and friends haven't already thought it through and implemented it. The iPhone is still a great device without it, but that would really take people to the next level. That could also be one of the "top secret" features that they don't want Microsoft copying with Windows Mobile. The nice fellow who went through the keynote with a fine-toothed comb looking for features pointed out a "Personal" synch tab that was never shown; this is what they're doing with it.
It's been done already on Palm, Windows and Symbian for almost a decade. They all sync office documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis
Incidentally, why is it that there is no synch via WiFi? The answer is so obvious I'm a little surprised it was overlooked. The iPhone needs to be charged, probably on a daily basis like my Sidekick does. What more natural thing than to take the iPhone home, put it in its charger/dock and have it automatically synch and charge. And that ensures that short of extremely long talk times, you'll never run out of battery.
If we ever get little atomic power plants for portable devices, the iPhone will be able to sync via WiFi. Until then, that little cable saves your phone by keeping it charged.
Syncing data takes no time at all after the first sync as most changes are small, so it's not about the battery. I sync my phone wirelessly already even though it comes with a dock. It's just easier.
And why not a Terminal.app and and iWork.app and.... on the front screen. I'm not saying all of these will be there but there was no reason to demo them. They were not the story. I wouldn't necessarily expect 'Preview.app'. You should be able to view PDF's in Safari if nothing else. I would also guess directly in Mail messages, where you're likely to get them in any case.
If every app is on the front screen then you have the crap UI of other phones.
I'd much rather have a Preview.app than Safari or Mail for viewing PDFs. Neither of the latter are any good at it.
The front screen UI was obviously not finished since they can't seriously be expecting users to stick with a max of 16 applications/widgets. I guess it'll scroll but it'd also be useful to categorise apps or stick them in folders.
I'm sure there's more to come on the UI front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy
For most of us it is the UI that IS a revolution. This is main area where current phone just don't cut it. Of course you can become an expert and use a phone efficiently but why should you.
I agree. That's where all of the current phone platforms suck. Some more than others, but they are all terrible.
But after a nice UI, it still has to do stuff that you'd expect from a $600 smartphone and they've picked a very limited subset for their presales pitch.
I'm pretty curious about this, actually. To view any normal web page, I would think EDGE speeds would be more than adequate. It's about 128kbps, right? So a page that's 100k would take a bit under 10 seconds (it's 12.8 k bytes per second, approximately).
I just loaded up Cingular's plans page, which I had not loaded previously, and it took about 15 seconds for my cable modem and 1.6ghz PowerBook G4 to download and process. So it doesn't seem to me like my effective speeds are that much more than EDGE.
I suppose video content might be a little painful but I don't watch enough video for it to matter that much.
So why are people so bothered by the lack of 3G? It seems like something that's more a feature checkoff than anything that we'll really use.
D
Good point. I haven't seen the latancy differences, but for most usages this is what matters... I have a broadband internet link to my house, it isn't turned all the way up yet (it's running at .6 Mb/s), but in web browsing and small file downloads it runs circles around these '8 Mb/s' cable deals. I was on the phone once and I had visited probably three pages for every one that that the cable connection did... When it came to sites with heavy graphics it was STILL faster. Just not so drastically. It's sorta like the hype about MP.
But after a nice UI, it still has to do stuff that you'd expect from a $600 smartphone and they've picked a very limited subset for their presales pitch.
Why?? That's a value judgement that the market has to make and as I, and many others, have said before, this is EXACTLY the same argument that was wrong for the iPod. "... It has to have many many more functions to be worth $399 (I think the price of the original). It has to have recording. It has to have an FM radio. It has to support WMA. etc. etc.
None of us will know until the market speaks but I think this will follow the iPod and therefore I don't think Jobs' and Cook's words are hyperbole.
Good point. I haven't seen the latancy differences, but for most usages this is what matters... I have a broadband internet link to my house, it isn't turned all the way up yet (it's running at .6 Mb/s), but in web browsing and small file downloads it runs circles around these '8 Mb/s' cable deals. I was on the phone once and I had visited probably three pages for every one that that the cable connection did... When it came to sites with heavy graphics it was STILL faster. Just not so drastically. It's sorta like the hype about MP.
Latency of the EDGE versus 3G proper, anyone?
It's not really general web browsing that's the issue and yes there is more of a latency issue with 3G than EDGE.
At some point you're going to want to download a large file to your connected computer, watch streaming video, perform a video call or whatever and for that you need a faster connection really than EDGE.
Why?? That's a value judgement that the market has to make and as I, and many others, have said before, this is EXACTLY the same argument that was wrong for the iPod. "... It has to have many many more functions to be worth $399 (I think the price of the original). It has to have recording. It has to have an FM radio. It has to support WMA. etc. etc.
None of us will know until the market speaks but I think this will follow the iPod and therefore I don't think Jobs' and Cook's words are hyperbole.
I know what you mean and I've used that argument myself. Apple does well often by concentrating on doing a few things well rather than adding lots of features. If that means they don't sell to every market niche then that's usually fine by them.
However, I don't think it's quite the same as the iPod this time. That just had one niche to fill. Phones have a much broader market. No matter how sexy the UI is, people still expect expensive phones to have certain functions and IMHO they're missing more than a few. Not letting people install extra apps is even more strange. Sure, they could just be going after the 'Ferrari' market - expensive, flash but not terribly practical. That doesn't sound revolutionary to me.
But as you've said, maybe that will change before release. For me, it's a year away anyway so they've plenty of time to fix the deficiencies or for hackers to put back the OSX services and apps many power users want. Heck, someone might have even ported Linux to it by the time I get one like they've done to the iPod. It's not far off the OpenMoko hardware. Problem solved.
I imagine Apple wanted a world-wide partner - Vodafone worldwide. That would have given them a smaller CDMA version in the US this year with Verizon, followed by a 3G version in Europe (and worldwide) next year. Going GSM at 2G this year probably shaved 5mm (1/4 inch) off the thickness - by next year 3G will be small enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
It doesn't have a PDF viewer either.
I thought that was confirmed as being in there. Can't find it though. hmmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
Damn straight it is OS X. It has Darwin, Cocoa, Core Animation, Security Features and Battery Optimization. It's OS X.
They said it was OSX and listed off a whole heap of features. Features they did NOT mention included Darwin and Carbon. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple thinks of Darwin as just the underlying stuff that OSX runs on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starwxrwx
From an Australian perspective <snip>
3G - essentially we don't even have 3G GSM (I think 3 is 3G GSM but limited coverage and crap plans+lock in phones), so who cares.
NextG is CDMA, not GSM, and hence not relevant to future 3G iPhones.
Three released 3G in Australia 3 years ago. Vodafone was 18 months ago, followed shortly by Optus (partnering Vodafone). Telstra partnered with Three for 3G. All of this was in the standard European 3GSM bands, and is only available in the capital cities so far (Optus rolling out nationwide over the next 3 years).
Telstra has released NextG, which is 3GSM nationwide, using their old CDMA frequencies (CDMA is shutting down) instead of the standard frequencies. 3GSM on 850Mhz is an unusual setup, though Cingular in the US is using that frequency which may mean an iPhone that only works on that and Telstra. More likely, though, is regular 3G for Europe.
NextG is CDMA, not GSM, and hence not relevant to future 3G iPhones.
ah ha, you learn something new everyday... well, guess i'll be leaving telstra next year :P
edit: according to GregAlexander i may not be leaving telstra after all... i thought i heard it was GSM... well, we'll see. would be good if i can keep my i-mode email address...
Comments
This is silly, and dated.
He -- and the people that work for him -- should go back to business school. He might be surprised.
hmmm... maybe that's why he used the past tense, as in, "were taught", "market was," etc...?
I'm getting a iPhone, but I don't see how they are calling it a smartphone. It they have some type of kick ass office suite to go with it, and some other type of business apps, I would agree. But they don't have either of those for the Macs, so I doubt they do.
They aren't calling it a smartphone. Other people are.
Heard of PPT?
Yep and never touch it. I've got Keynote
And for reviewing on a phone PDF is just fine. I wouldn't really want to edit a presentation on a phone in any case. Minor edits to excel and word seem OK but I personally wouldn't do it.
VNC - If you complaining about google apps on a small screen this would be even worse getting another computers full desktop.
The difference being that a lite-office type app can be made to work on a compact device and has been done for maybe five years, without having to resort to AJAX hackery, needing a network and such. I'm not saying AJAX is bad, but if Apple really was concerned about not overloading the carrier's networks, then they will have to allow a native app for that. AJAX really isn't an ideal for that task.
At least using the network for VNC is justifiable, it's intrinsic to the service.
They aren't calling it a smartphone. Other people are.
I don't think it's necessary to use a certain word to convey the same idea. What they say tries to gives the impression that it is an extension to the smartphone idea - a supersmartphone if you will.
And for reviewing on a phone PDF is just fine. I wouldn't really want to edit a presentation on a phone in any case. Minor edits to excel and word seem OK but I personally wouldn't do it.
It doesn't have a PDF viewer either.
I don't think it's necessary to use a certain word to convey the same idea. What they say tries to gives the impression that it is an extension to the smartphone idea - a supersmartphone if you will.
I disagree. Apple is saying that this is a revolutionary device, not an extension to existing technology. I tend to agree. It does not go down the smart phone path (in fact its does a lot less than what most smart phones do). It goes down a completely new path. This is a new class of product. It bridges the UI and ease of use of a desktop operating system with the functionality of mobile devices. It's a paradigm shift.
I would be quite surprised if a version if iWork was not made available for the iPhone. In fact, this may be why we haven't heard much about iWork lately. If the iPhone had Pages, Keynote and Numbers adapted for the small screen I think it would be of great interest. And imagine if your Documents folder was automatically synched through iTunes!
Really, this is such an obvious idea that I'd be very surprised if Steve and friends haven't already thought it through and implemented it. The iPhone is still a great device without it, but that would really take people to the next level. That could also be one of the "top secret" features that they don't want Microsoft copying with Windows Mobile. The nice fellow who went through the keynote with a fine-toothed comb looking for features pointed out a "Personal" synch tab that was never shown; this is what they're doing with it.
Incidentally, why is it that there is no synch via WiFi? The answer is so obvious I'm a little surprised it was overlooked. The iPhone needs to be charged, probably on a daily basis like my Sidekick does. What more natural thing than to take the iPhone home, put it in its charger/dock and have it automatically synch and charge. And that ensures that short of extremely long talk times, you'll never run out of battery.
If we ever get little atomic power plants for portable devices, the iPhone will be able to sync via WiFi. Until then, that little cable saves your phone by keeping it charged.
D
It doesn't have a PDF viewer either.
My whole point is we don't know that. We only know some of the things it does have. The Quartz and QuartzCore frameworks are only about 10+ MByte on Intel. Easy to fit on the phone.
I disagree. Apple is saying that this is a revolutionary device, not an extension to existing technology.
They can say that but apart from the UI and Multitouch, it patently isn't anything new or revolutionary. It's an expensive smartphone with limited functionality.
My whole point is we don't know that. We only know some of the things it does have.
Possibly but then they had icons for things that didn't work yet on the demo model so why not add a Preview.app icon too?
Possibly but then they had icons for things that didn't work yet on the demo model so why not add a Preview.app icon too?
And why not a Terminal.app and and iWork.app and.... on the front screen. I'm not saying all of these will be there but there was no reason to demo them. They were not the story. I wouldn't necessarily expect 'Preview.app'. You should be able to view PDF's in Safari if nothing else. I would also guess directly in Mail messages, where you're likely to get them in any case.
If every app is on the front screen then you have the crap UI of other phones.
They can say that but apart from the UI and Multitouch, it patently isn't anything new or revolutionary. It's an expensive smartphone with limited functionality.
For most of us it is the UI that IS a revolution. This is main area where current phone just don't cut it. Of course you can become an expert and use a phone efficiently but why should you.
Never fear. The iPhone specs say it will automatically transition to wifi if available, and it was in fact using wifi during Steve's demo.
I think it was actually cabled up with a direct cable all of the time it was demoed. I'd be very surprised if it transitions to Wi-Fi for calls using SIP. That's the kind of thing that would be shouted from the rooftops and the kind of thing that carriers hate. Most of the carriers in the UK here have disabled VoIP on the Nokia range of phones that are capable of acting as SIP phones (Nokia N80ie, E61 etc).
I would be quite surprised if a version if iWork was not made available for the iPhone. In fact, this may be why we haven't heard much about iWork lately. If the iPhone had Pages, Keynote and Numbers adapted for the small screen I think it would be of great interest. And imagine if your Documents folder was automatically synched through iTunes!
It's a lot of work to adapt a desktop app for a small screen and the iWork apps consume a lot of screen real estate with their multiple inspectors and drawers.
My Documents folder is 120GB so I hope it doesn't get synced. I'd rather they used iSync than iTunes too but apparently they aren't.
It annoys me immensely that one of Apple's worst applications is the home for syncing devices and they're letting iSync wither.
Really, this is such an obvious idea that I'd be very surprised if Steve and friends haven't already thought it through and implemented it. The iPhone is still a great device without it, but that would really take people to the next level. That could also be one of the "top secret" features that they don't want Microsoft copying with Windows Mobile. The nice fellow who went through the keynote with a fine-toothed comb looking for features pointed out a "Personal" synch tab that was never shown; this is what they're doing with it.
It's been done already on Palm, Windows and Symbian for almost a decade. They all sync office documents.
Incidentally, why is it that there is no synch via WiFi? The answer is so obvious I'm a little surprised it was overlooked. The iPhone needs to be charged, probably on a daily basis like my Sidekick does. What more natural thing than to take the iPhone home, put it in its charger/dock and have it automatically synch and charge. And that ensures that short of extremely long talk times, you'll never run out of battery.
If we ever get little atomic power plants for portable devices, the iPhone will be able to sync via WiFi. Until then, that little cable saves your phone by keeping it charged.
Syncing data takes no time at all after the first sync as most changes are small, so it's not about the battery. I sync my phone wirelessly already even though it comes with a dock. It's just easier.
And why not a Terminal.app and and iWork.app and.... on the front screen. I'm not saying all of these will be there but there was no reason to demo them. They were not the story. I wouldn't necessarily expect 'Preview.app'. You should be able to view PDF's in Safari if nothing else. I would also guess directly in Mail messages, where you're likely to get them in any case.
If every app is on the front screen then you have the crap UI of other phones.
I'd much rather have a Preview.app than Safari or Mail for viewing PDFs. Neither of the latter are any good at it.
The front screen UI was obviously not finished since they can't seriously be expecting users to stick with a max of 16 applications/widgets. I guess it'll scroll but it'd also be useful to categorise apps or stick them in folders.
I'm sure there's more to come on the UI front.
For most of us it is the UI that IS a revolution. This is main area where current phone just don't cut it. Of course you can become an expert and use a phone efficiently but why should you.
I agree. That's where all of the current phone platforms suck. Some more than others, but they are all terrible.
But after a nice UI, it still has to do stuff that you'd expect from a $600 smartphone and they've picked a very limited subset for their presales pitch.
I'm pretty curious about this, actually. To view any normal web page, I would think EDGE speeds would be more than adequate. It's about 128kbps, right? So a page that's 100k would take a bit under 10 seconds (it's 12.8 k bytes per second, approximately).
I just loaded up Cingular's plans page, which I had not loaded previously, and it took about 15 seconds for my cable modem and 1.6ghz PowerBook G4 to download and process. So it doesn't seem to me like my effective speeds are that much more than EDGE.
I suppose video content might be a little painful but I don't watch enough video for it to matter that much.
So why are people so bothered by the lack of 3G? It seems like something that's more a feature checkoff than anything that we'll really use.
D
Good point. I haven't seen the latancy differences, but for most usages this is what matters... I have a broadband internet link to my house, it isn't turned all the way up yet (it's running at .6 Mb/s), but in web browsing and small file downloads it runs circles around these '8 Mb/s' cable deals. I was on the phone once and I had visited probably three pages for every one that that the cable connection did... When it came to sites with heavy graphics it was STILL faster. Just not so drastically. It's sorta like the hype about MP.
Latency of the EDGE versus 3G proper, anyone?
But after a nice UI, it still has to do stuff that you'd expect from a $600 smartphone and they've picked a very limited subset for their presales pitch.
Why?? That's a value judgement that the market has to make and as I, and many others, have said before, this is EXACTLY the same argument that was wrong for the iPod. "... It has to have many many more functions to be worth $399 (I think the price of the original). It has to have recording. It has to have an FM radio. It has to support WMA. etc. etc.
None of us will know until the market speaks but I think this will follow the iPod and therefore I don't think Jobs' and Cook's words are hyperbole.
Good point. I haven't seen the latancy differences, but for most usages this is what matters... I have a broadband internet link to my house, it isn't turned all the way up yet (it's running at .6 Mb/s), but in web browsing and small file downloads it runs circles around these '8 Mb/s' cable deals. I was on the phone once and I had visited probably three pages for every one that that the cable connection did... When it came to sites with heavy graphics it was STILL faster. Just not so drastically. It's sorta like the hype about MP.
Latency of the EDGE versus 3G proper, anyone?
It's not really general web browsing that's the issue and yes there is more of a latency issue with 3G than EDGE.
At some point you're going to want to download a large file to your connected computer, watch streaming video, perform a video call or whatever and for that you need a faster connection really than EDGE.
Why?? That's a value judgement that the market has to make and as I, and many others, have said before, this is EXACTLY the same argument that was wrong for the iPod. "... It has to have many many more functions to be worth $399 (I think the price of the original). It has to have recording. It has to have an FM radio. It has to support WMA. etc. etc.
None of us will know until the market speaks but I think this will follow the iPod and therefore I don't think Jobs' and Cook's words are hyperbole.
I know what you mean and I've used that argument myself. Apple does well often by concentrating on doing a few things well rather than adding lots of features. If that means they don't sell to every market niche then that's usually fine by them.
However, I don't think it's quite the same as the iPod this time. That just had one niche to fill. Phones have a much broader market. No matter how sexy the UI is, people still expect expensive phones to have certain functions and IMHO they're missing more than a few. Not letting people install extra apps is even more strange. Sure, they could just be going after the 'Ferrari' market - expensive, flash but not terribly practical. That doesn't sound revolutionary to me.
But as you've said, maybe that will change before release. For me, it's a year away anyway so they've plenty of time to fix the deficiencies or for hackers to put back the OSX services and apps many power users want. Heck, someone might have even ported Linux to it by the time I get one like they've done to the iPod. It's not far off the OpenMoko hardware. Problem solved.
Translation: Verizon turned us down.
I imagine Apple wanted a world-wide partner - Vodafone worldwide. That would have given them a smaller CDMA version in the US this year with Verizon, followed by a 3G version in Europe (and worldwide) next year. Going GSM at 2G this year probably shaved 5mm (1/4 inch) off the thickness - by next year 3G will be small enough.
It doesn't have a PDF viewer either.
I thought that was confirmed as being in there. Can't find it though. hmmm.
Damn straight it is OS X. It has Darwin, Cocoa, Core Animation, Security Features and Battery Optimization. It's OS X.
They said it was OSX and listed off a whole heap of features. Features they did NOT mention included Darwin and Carbon. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple thinks of Darwin as just the underlying stuff that OSX runs on.
From an Australian perspective <snip>
3G - essentially we don't even have 3G GSM (I think 3 is 3G GSM but limited coverage and crap plans+lock in phones), so who cares.
NextG is CDMA, not GSM, and hence not relevant to future 3G iPhones.
Three released 3G in Australia 3 years ago. Vodafone was 18 months ago, followed shortly by Optus (partnering Vodafone). Telstra partnered with Three for 3G. All of this was in the standard European 3GSM bands, and is only available in the capital cities so far (Optus rolling out nationwide over the next 3 years).
Telstra has released NextG, which is 3GSM nationwide, using their old CDMA frequencies (CDMA is shutting down) instead of the standard frequencies. 3GSM on 850Mhz is an unusual setup, though Cingular in the US is using that frequency which may mean an iPhone that only works on that and Telstra. More likely, though, is regular 3G for Europe.
NextG is CDMA, not GSM, and hence not relevant to future 3G iPhones.
ah ha, you learn something new everyday... well, guess i'll be leaving telstra next year :P
edit: according to GregAlexander i may not be leaving telstra after all... i thought i heard it was GSM... well, we'll see. would be good if i can keep my i-mode email address...