Well, Steve Ballmer has proven that he either has no idea what he's talking about or is a really bad spin doctor. In a Silicon.com article Ballmer is quoted as saying that:
"We’ve had DRM in Windows for years. The most common format of music on an iPod is 'stolen'."
Excuse me?
Even if the most common format of music on an iPod is "stolen", I really don't see Ballmer's point. If that's the case, then it's also highly likely that the most common format of music on Windows is stolen as well. Microsoft doesn't even make a player like the iPod, so I really don't understand what exactly he's comparing. Regardless, the iPod allows you to play MP3s (be they ripped from CD, legally bought online or obtained from P2P networks) as do many other portable music players which support MP3s and Windows Media files.
Microsoft's own Windows Media Player software also plays all the "stolen" music that people have. What's the bloody difference, Ballmer?
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Apple the first company to create a viable and successful DRM music store in the first place? I don't see what's different about Apple in terms of the DRM to stolen music ratio in this case. Everyone including Microsoft supports unDRMed music formats. In fact, I'd say that there's probably more purchased DRM music on iPods since the iTunes music store is by far the most successful of its kind.
Personally, I don't see how this kind of statement is going to hurt Apple. Apple doesn't want to come out themselves and say they are promoting freedom in music, but if Ballmer says it I'm sure they wont complain. In the eyes of the music industry Ballmer may be painting Apple as the bad guys, but in the eyes of consumers this statement makes Apple look like the freedom fighters, as it were, and Microsoft as the controlling bad guys.
So not only does Ballmer's statement make no sense as the amount of stolen music is the same on an iPod than on Windows, but it also makes Microsoft look bad in the eyes of their customers.