For all the complaints about how Jason Fried should have given them a holler and jawed it out person-to-person, none of GS's defenders note that they aren't doing what one person would do upon accidentally wronging another: apologize.
Of course, there's a very good reason for that: saying "Sorry" can be cited as a possible admission of guilt. Really, it looks like GS is trying to establish a public record that they acted quickly to resolve these problems without admitting wrongdoing at any point.
That isn't behavior that's very consistent with "smart, but naive guys at a startup". If they didn't run out and get a lawyer and have him/her start looking over their copy and responses to the blog post, then they're more sophisticated than their defenders give them credit for.
You're right. Muller's comment there is head and shoulders above later remarks by GS (and much of the arguments made on their behalf).
As to your question, yes, you do have to say "sorry" or "I apologize". You also have to avoid criticizing those you've wronged while doing so and in subsequent statements on the matter.
Specifically, you have to avoid saying things like this:
"I have to be honest: All of these charges of extortion are distressing for someone who has worked so hard to try and encourage open and honest communication between companies and customers. I know that the pile-on effect is in effect here, but to hear it told in these comments, we’re evil people who are trying to exploit people in the worst way. We’ve always been simply trying to help improve the way companies do their customer service and make it more human. We apparently need to be better at explaining the way it works, I suppose.
"And now, I’ll step aside and dodge the bottle I see sailing through the air in my direction."
It's the attempts to evoke pity for them and cast any criticism as mindless persecution by people who aren't smart enough to get them that create more hostility. When you're in the wrong, it's just not time to go on about how you feel hurt by people being critical of you.
More appropriate would be, "We work very hard at trying to encourage open and honest communication between companies and customers. For that reason, I find it very distressing that our efforts could strike people as evil or extortionate. That is not in any way our intent, and we are looking at ways to better explain how what we do works."
Of course, there's a very good reason for that: saying "Sorry" can be cited as a possible admission of guilt. Really, it looks like GS is trying to establish a public record that they acted quickly to resolve these problems without admitting wrongdoing at any point.
That isn't behavior that's very consistent with "smart, but naive guys at a startup". If they didn't run out and get a lawyer and have him/her start looking over their copy and responses to the blog post, then they're more sophisticated than their defenders give them credit for.