TV is huge. According to the latest Ofcom Communications Market Report, we watch an average of 3.8 hours of TV a day in the UK (I gather it's about 4.5 hours in the US.) 92% of us have switched over from analogue to Digital TV, and 31% of adults had watched catch-up TV online in Q1 2010. It is an £11 billion industry in the UK alone, with about a quarter of that revenue coming from public funds, another 28% coming from advertising, and 41% coming from subscription costs. (Add another $70 billion in advertising and an equal amount in cable and satellite fees if you want to look at the US.) It's also quite unique, in the way that such a huge amount of the time we spend watching TV is doing it as a shared experience.

But "TV" has an interesting problem. It has developed from a 'first generation' of analogue signals to a 'second generation' of digital transmissions. We now have more choice (over 400 channels in the UK), more functionality (EPG and PVR), and increasing availability of TV content elsewhere (online catch-up services on PC and mobile devices.)

With Google TV and Project Canvas expected to see consumer releases in the next 6 months or so, and Sky and Virgin Media making moves in the VOD space, the 'next generation' of TV seems to be on the horizon. There are also a few rumours going round at the moment about Apple relaunching their Apple TV product, and with a press event scheduled for next week there is some speculation that something might be announced very soon.

So I thought it was a good time to put down how I see "TV" developing as it deals with the new opportunities and problems that it's facing, and why Apple look like the company that is best equipped to lead it into the next generation. The rumours about Apple TV are essentially that Apple TV will be relaunched/refreshed as a $99, iOS-based device, and renamed iTV. Personally, I would be surprised if iTV were the name that they went with - because of what ITV in the UK is. Although it's interesting to think about what Apple could do with their $40 billion in cash reserves when dealing with a company with a market cap of just over £2 billion, it just doesn't seem realistic to me that the name would be worth the hassle for Apple.

But the idea of a $99, iOS based device is certainly interesting. Especially when you consider what "iOS-based" could mean.

The big problem for all this TV/media technology is about how we control it all. When we had 4 or 5 channels to choose from, a remote control with a numerical keypad and a few special buttons for controlling volume and picture settings was fine. When we added a video recorder, an extra remote control was a hassle- but a manageable one.

With Digital TV and PVRs, the video recorder became integrated with the TV set. Instead of setting it to record from, say, 9:00 to 9:30 (or more likely, 8:55 to 9:35, just to be on the safe side) on a particular channel, you could set it to record a particular programme- as a one-off, or as a series link. Much easier to do, and much harder to get wrong.

But at the same time, when you separated your TV set from the set-top box that delivers the TV content, then that's another controller to replace the one that has been removed. Add a DVD or Blu-Ray player and a surround sound system, then you're adding another. Throw in a games console, and maybe something like an Apple TV or a media centre PC to stream online video to your TV set and you've got a pretty unmanageable collection of controllers that you want within your reach just to watch your TV.

So, lets say that you've somehow combined all your remote controls into one hypothetical "everything controller"...

...only in a more elegant way than Peep Show's 'Megatron'. I know there are "all-in-one" or "universal remote controls" on the market, but all the ones I've seen take hours to set up, hours more to learn how to use, and if they have any flexibility at all (which they need to be able to control any of a range of TV sets, set top boxes, DVD players and so on), they are seriously expensive kit. And ultimately, from my experiences, they don't solve the problem of "making everything easier and less complicated." (Stephen Fry's experiences sound similar.)

Even if one of these controllers worked as well as their marketing would suggest, they don't solve the fundamental problem. As well as whatever happens to be on over 400 channels in the UK right now that you have to navigate, plus whatever has been on in the last 7 days for those channels with catch up services, plus whatever you've recorded on your PVR, you have a lot of content to navigate. Not particularly well organised content either, with +1, +2 and HD versions of channels, the same programmes shown on different channels (South Park seems to be on at least one of 5 whenever I'm looking.) Add in a world of online video, whether that's downloading or streaming films, or video like YouTube, and there's a rapidly growing library to deal with.

As I mentioned a couple of years ago, I've been playing around with TV/video/internet technology for a while, and I've been fortunate enough to have access to a lot of the technology that I wouldn't necessarily buy myself (even if I could afford it.) Amongst others, I've tried out Sky+, V+, BT Vision and Freeview+, Media Centre PCs, Slingbox, streaming video through Xbox 360 and PS3, an iPad, and various mobile phones, laptops and netbooks. I've learnt a fair amount about what is being done and can be done with TV technology, as well as some interesting things about the difference between what I thought would be useful and what I actually find useful on a day to day basis.

Out of all that, I think there are three key lessons that I've learnt over the last 3 years;

1. You need something much better than a traditional remote control, especially if you want to deal with any kind of on-demand or online content. Particularly if you're operating a PC, a keyboard and mouse are essential. If you're using something like Apple TV, a games console, or BT Vision (where you're using an up/down/left/right control to input text), then the lack of a "proper" keyboard becomes readily apparent as a real problem. People are spending a lot of time and money trying to fix this problem, but I don't think anyone has really succeeded yet.
2. The most important thing when it comes to media consumption is the sofa. The sofa is the most comfortable chair in your house. It's where you sit when you've got some time on your hands. And it probably has a TV sitting in front of it. Move your TV set to somewhere you can't see from your sofa, and see what changes most- how much TV you watch, or how much time you spend on your sofa. My bet is that it will be the first.
3. A keyboard and mouse just don't work well from a sofa. In the same way that the iPad fills a hole for people who were putting up with laptops as a "sofa surfing" device, something is going to fill the hole for people who are putting up with a keyboard and mouse as a remote control substitute.

So, while the politics of Canvas, Apple, Google, Virgin, Sky etc. are clearly going to be important to the next generation of television content, the key to navigating all that content is going to be control. Whoever can crack that problem, in a way that anyone can use and understand, is going to lead the next generation of television. Looking at what Apple did to the mobile phone world gives an idea of how a reasonably established industry can shift at a surprisingly fast pace- but I can't think of a single industry with quite as much to be won (and lost) as TV. As well as mobile phones, Apple have also been hugely disruptive in the music industry - two very different industries, with big, established and entrenched players. Both times, Apple have come out looking very well indeed.

So, my big prediction...

Apple TV will essentially become an iOS accessory.

Despite the rumours, an Apple TV as it works at the moment with a new operating system just doesn't make much sense to me. iOS is fundamentally designed for touch. Whether that's tapping, swiping, or the kind of multi-touch gestures that more advanced applications take advantage of, it is all about fingertips. Turning that into something that uses a simple remote control like the current Apple TV uses is just too big a leap. While there are certainly some really interesting (and cool-sounding) ideas about how that might work, they just don't quite sound right to me.

But that isn't to say that an iOS-based touchscreen interface won't work for TV- even though the screen is far too far away for users to actually touch. The original idea of Apple TV was a box that came between your PC and your TV, streaming video from your computer's hard drive to your TV screen. When Apple later revised the idea, they took the PC out of the picture, so you could now stream video from the internet directly to the TV. The job that Apple TV originally did was basically a wireless interface between PC and TV, with a reworked Front Row UI. With the revision, the UI became more powerful, and capable of working directly with YouTube, iTunes, Flickr etc.

The key is to stop thinking about the set-top box as a single device with a "dumb" controller, and think about what happens if the real trickery is happening in the controller, rather than the box. Instead of the controller being a dumb device, and all the clever stuff happens in the actual box, think about how it could work the other way around; the box is just a dumb device that plays video (or photos, or music.) It has no UI- just a bunch of APIs. All the cool stuff happens in the controller- the iPhone or iPad application. (There's no reason it would have to be restricted to iOS either- a set of APIs that work over bluetooth or WiFi could work just as well from an Android, Blackberry or Symbian device. Come to that, it could also sit on a laptop or netbook, and run in OSX, Windows or Linux.)

Now, think about what happens if instead of the content being stored on a PC, or on the Apple TV box, it is stored on the remote control. That means that you can easily take the content with you out of the house. If the controller happens to have a screen on it (ie. if it's an iPhone, an iPod Touch, or an iPad), then it can really do pretty much anything that you'd want your Apple TV to do- with the sole exception of connecting to your TV set. (Which is the original job that the Apple TV did for the PC.)

All you then need is something that will connect your iOS device's bluetooth/wifi connection to your other bits of equipment- your satellite or cable box, your DVD player etc. (Devices like Slingbox and Sony's Location Free do this already, with a small infra-red LED that mimics the remote control.) Instead of trying to integrate everything with the "Apple TV" box, they can just be integrated with the iOS controller. (With the added advantage that the TV companies don't necessarily have to want to play along.)

You should be able to see where this idea is heading. Dan Provost posted his thoughts on how the next generation of Apple TV might work.

The no brainer option is to use a preexisting iOS device. Using an iPhone as a remote is not a novel concept: Boxee has a remote app for controlling their media center, and of course Apple has their own Remote app for controlling iTunes. These two apps take different approaches. Boxee attempts to mimic a traditional remote by offering a touch version of the 5-way directional pad, while Apple’s Remote app translates the program’s (in this case iTunes) interface to the screen of the device. Both of these solutions have their merits, but I am more partial to the later. Why use one device to select something on a different device when the manipulation is able to occur directly on the original device? Sounds kind of like, using a mouse to select something on a screen instead of just tapping the object on the screen directly.

I'm a big fan of the Apple Remote application. Since my iTunes library replaced my CD library, it's the best way for me to control my music from the sofa. Whether that's pausing, skipping, or changing the volume, it just does the job. More importantly, it does it from something that I carry around with me all the time.

But an application that I think offers a better idea of what this "remote control of the future app" could look like is Air Mouse Pro. In the mode I use it most, to control my PC from the sofa (the PC being hooked up to the TV set), the top half of the screen works like the trackpad on a laptop, while the bottom half is the iOS keyboard.

An alternative way is to use it as an "air mouse"; a bit like the Nintendo Wii controller, waving the iPhone from side to side or up and down moves the pointer on the screen. (Perhaps the gyroscope on the iPhone 4 will make this more usable, but I prefer the trackpad approach.)

But where it really shines is in application-specific modes. It can control media players like iTunes, Windows Media Player etc.

It can be the controller for a web browser, with buttons like Home, Back, Refresh and so on...

Of course, if you're really tied to the idea of a numerical keypad, then it can do that job too...

What it highlights is firstly, how a touch screen controller can have whatever keys, in whatever layout you like. And secondly, when the buttons aren't on the TV screen, the whole screen can be freed up. Chuck in the functionality of the TV Guide and Sky+" apps, and you've got a remote control that you can take out with you and record (or download) the programmes you want to watch, even when you aren't at home to watch them.

So far so good. But there's another problem that this solves- a problem that I think we take for granted so much that we forget that there could be a solution. Going back to the first paragraph of this post; TV is a shared medium. Which is fine- until the wrong person gets hold of the remote control. Whether that means having the programme you're watching obscured by the TV guide as whoever is "the controller" flicks around to see what else is on (or worse- "the controller" switches around between channels, leaving you unsure about which one they might eventually settle on- and knowing that once they do stop, they might then start switching again a minute or two later, just as you'd started really paying attention...) With a touch screen controller, all of that on-screen information from the EPG can just be moved away to a different screen, leaving the TV set free to show the video content that everyone in the room wants to watch.

Not only that, but other information could be brought into the controller as well. See which of your friends are posting on Facebook or Twitter about what you are watching. How about something like the directors' commentaries on DVDs- a live chat with the producers, or actors, or other fans? Or seeing if other episodes are available to start downloading, so they are ready to watch when you've finished the episode you're on? Or maybe see what other programmes from the same writers/director/cast? Of course, there's no need to just have one "controller" - anyone with an iOS device and the right controller applications installed could access the EPG, the stored content on the PVR, or see what online content is available.

What's more, this isn't just a "TV" idea though. Instead of just thinking of your TV setup as a screen, think about the speakers. This could just as well be a home stereo system, playing your iPhone's music through your living room speakers. Or any music that your guests have with them. Or streaming music over the internet- remember, Apple have been working on a data centre that would be more than capable of delivering a lot of music to a lot of households, and since buying music streaming service LaLa last December, they have the expertise to set something similar up themselves. Or it could be used to show the photos or videos that you've taken on your iOS device on your nice big high-definition TV screen.

Of course, a dumb $99 device doesn't sound very Apple-ish; given that what Apple do very well is get people to spend lots of money on their products, you'd expect there to be some more expensive options than a simple $99 product. So, add another $150 or so and throw an iPod Touch into the box. Or expand the device itself; add another $99-150 or so and include the WiFi base station features of Airport Express (including the ability connect a printer or hard drive to the network.) Or, for another $99 on top of that, chuck in a backup hard drive and you've got all the features of Time Capsule.

Ultimately, you would be looking at something slightly cheaper than a Mac Mini, that does as good a job of being a true media centre as anything I can think of. Most importantly, it does it without any massive new hardware technology revolution- the magic would all in the software and UI design.

Which is the kind of magic that Apple can do quite well...