[dublinben]

This is a classic non-apology apology. He's not sorry for the original action which offended people, just that his action caused offense. It's the kind of corporate double-speak you hear from someone who is not sorry for their actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

[slucidi]

Except he apologised for causing hurt, he didn't apologise that people felt hurt. There's a difference in the level of responsibility taken for the action.

[gcp]

A straight apology now would have been nothing short of opportunistic and considered cheap.

Promising action to the contrary sounds a lot better.

[azinman2]

He never addressed the core issue which gave way to this entire blog post.

[gcp]

Because that one is about his personal opinion, which nobody should give two fucks about? It's what he does as CEO that matters. And from what I can see, he's pretty much made it clear he's willing to put his personal opinion aside for that.

[Confusion]

A sequence of words does not have a single meaning and does not always mean the exact same thing. This sequence of words is not necessarily a non-apology apology. That interpretation denies the possibility that someone can be genuinely sorry that his opinion and words caused grief, even though he still stands by that opinion and those words.