First, we already know that apps running in the background as a process is possible on the iPhone. The iPod app, SMS app, and various other apps all run in the background now and continue running no matter where you go in the phone. Also, user-made Installer.app apps like Apollo (an IM client) already run in the background just fine. So why did Apple make this limitation that all apps have to quit whenever the user switches out? Memory management. From Apple's Human Interface Guidelines for the iPhone:

Apple has no idea what combination of applications you could possibly install on your phone, and they can't control it. If you were to install two apps that took up loads of the iPhone's memory (we're talking RAM), and they both ran in the background, it would slow down the phone's other, more important tasks such as calling or iPodding. If this were the case, Apple would be blamed for making a slow or non-responsive phone even when it's not actually Apple's fault. This is exactly the thing that goes on in Windows Mobile devices. It's fine when you're just running normal, natively-installed apps, but when you get to multi-tasking with your own installed programs, the phone becomes sluggish and everyone curses Microsoft. Apple wants none of this.

So the implication to you, the end-user, is that you can't have apps running in the background, constantly checking the internet. This means no RSS reader that's always up-to-date and no IM apps that always sit in the background, listening for messages. If you're wondering Exchange's push email and calendars are going to work in this scheme, it'll be integrated into Apple's first-party Mail system, which can be allowed to run in the background.

But in the end, it's only a small portion of apps that are really affected by this rule. Games or utilities can save their app status to disk often so that you can resume where you left off when you start it back up. But until the iPhone allows SDK-applications to run in the background, you're probably better off using a web-based chat application in Safari (which already has permission to). [Tech Crunch]

Our momentum will continue with the introduction of in-game communication in the summer, firmware update 2.4 and the strongest line-up of games through our third party partners and our own studios. I'd personally like to thank our trade and business partners for helping us on the start of the PS3 journey.

So, there's going to be improved in-game chat (maybe expanded to every game via an in-game Xross Media Bar?) that's even better than the chat we've already used now? Sign us up. [MCVUK via Kotaku]

On the other hand, if the bubble could be mounted on a hat and the text could be punched in using a cellphone or something similarly compact, it could be a fun way to engage in a conversation. Until you were tired of looking like an idiot that is. [Project Page via Make]

The program could become the Don to your lonely Juan: Once it chats up the ladies (or supposed ladies, or supposed human non-chatbots), it hands them off to you: "Within half an hour the CyberLover program will introduce you to ... girls, exchange photos and perhaps even a contact phone number."

But Sergei Shevchenko, a malware analyst at PC Tools, says: "As a tool that can be used by hackers to conduct identity fraud, CyberLover demonstrates an unprecedented level of social engineering."

Is that an endorsement or a condemnation? Either way it proves my point about y'all going around visiting .ru sites. It's only available in Russian, where it takes far fewer words to get a lady excited, as long as those words include "fur coat," "vodka," and "diamond-studded rims on my Bentley". If you do speak Russian, however, and want to CAREFULLY check out these claims, jump to Reuters for a link to the nasty.

CyberLover goes on sale February 15, perhaps as a suicide remedy on the morning after Valentine's Day. [Reuters]

Once you do manage to load a chat screen with a buddy that happens to there (thanks, Adam Frucci), there are some amateur features/early bugs like having to hit a button to bring up the keyboard, and being able edit the chat history. This version is a fantastic proof of concept, but definitely a lousy chat client.

Oh, and the first IRC client has been released as well. But unless this is 1999 again, most of you will have no use for this. But you can make IRC commands and chat, so there's that.

You can install both with Installer.app, which you can see how to use here.

[Google Code via TUAW]

In our own tests, the IMs came in super speedy and in iChat-esque bubbles (like the SMS app). There's even chat icons on the top to represent tabs, so you can cycle between different conversations. It's still in alpha, which explains why there aren't any options for, say, hiding offline contacts, but it's still good enough to earn our recommendation as the best chat app so far. [BeeJive]

What does this do? Well, with this, you can forward your messages to your iPhone, which with the iChat-like SMS screen, gives you a kind of iChat-esque option for chat.

It's pretty ghetto, and it's pretty much the least Apple could do to get iChat onto the iPhone. How about we see a real iChat app, or better yet, a multi-client chat client like Adium?

AOL Mobile

Product Page [Via newlaunches]

We're pretty sure the room limit is set to 40 users, so if you can't get in, that's probably why. But give it a whirl—we'd like to see how this thing operates when we're pushing it to its limits. (Plus we really get off on banning people willy-nilly.)

It's web-based IRC with in-line pictures. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that, right?

Gizmodo Campfire Chat Room [CampfireNow]