This image was lost some time after publication.

TIM FAULKNER — As reported by TechCrunch, Pandora, the music recommendation and internet radio service based on the Music Genome Project, made a series of announcements yesterday to better position itself against its competitors (last.fm, LAUNCHCast, SomaFM, and numerous others) through agreements extending their service to others' devices. However, the decision to launch their own branded device seems contradictory and highly questionable.

Deals with Sprint (mobile phones) and Sonos (the home) are an obvious move to expand Pandora's reach. So why not reach a deal with a manufacturer of an existing music playing device rather than launching their own player? (Several details remain undetermined about the device, but it appears to be Pandora-branded.)

The device market has been more lucrative than the service market for Apple, maker of the ubiquitous iPod, but that's Apple; plenty have been weighed down by the costs of small marketshare. Pandora already faces several challenges: it competes for mindshare with last.fm and others, has been restricted to the U.S., faces higher licensing fees in the near future, and now will be competing in a cutthroat market dominated by the iPod.

If they fail, Pandora will only increase their already substantial costs. If they succeed (by which I mean, establish decent profit margins, not achieve substantial marketshare), they will exacerbate the greed of the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collector of streaming radio licensing fees, who feel they deserve a piece of any music-related profits.

Wireless devices with music streaming may have the potential to compete with music subscription services and satellite radio, but this move by Pandora seems desperate and unsound. What do you think: brilliant strategy or last gasp of a troubled company?