One of the salient points that seems to be getting lost here is that the damage, at least as perceived by Jason (and to a large extent acknowledged by GS), was

One of the salient points that seems to be getting lost here is that the damage, at least as perceived by Jason (and to a large extent acknowledged by GS), was done in a very public way. So, simply fixing the problem going forward - as everyone acknowledges GS did, quickly and effectively - only addresses half the issue from the "wronged" party's perspective. If you buy Jason's point, this pretty much had to be handled in a loud, public way. On some level, of course, there's no undoing what's done. Certainly a good number of 37s customers who got a bad impression from having their complaints "ignored" by 37s aren't going to notice this blog-spat, and their negative impressions will remain. That's life. But by bringing this to light publicly, and making an issue out of it, at least some of those people will have their impressions corrected, which is only fair. All that said, could the phrasing have been a little more nuanced and less accusatory? Of course. Was Jason right to assume evil rather than genuine ignorance or lack of perspective? Probably not. (Though it might be reasonable to ask at what point ignorance, when it's so overwhelmingly in your favor, becomes negligence). But the notion of "37s should have just talked to GS privately, which would have resulted in the same fixes" misses a good part of Jason's argument, which is that a public "offense" (for lack of a better word) ought to be addressed publicly.