Matthew—Dave made a number of statements about the viability of Audible’s business that do relate to his competence to make such statements.

Pointing out in response to Dave’s repeatedly saying (without bothering to read my comments in response, apparently) that Audible is suffering from a downturn—in the face the fact the company reported dramatically improved revenue and customer growth—he doesn’t seem to have the business insight to make a sound judgement is, if anything, as direct Dave’s use of words like “shitty” to describe a product I worked on. He left money on the table in his own business, which suggests he’s not always accurate in his assessment of the performance of a business. Why should someone apologize for pointing that out?

As I pointed out in another posting, you cannot have a discussion with Dave without it being personal since the technology and business are interchangeable in his view of the world. He made a pronouncement based on his authority to judge how to best monetize technology, so let’s do look at his qualifications.

Also, you say on your blog that I called Dave a thief in my posting. I didn’t. Please, read back and tell me where I did that. I pointed out carefully that he suggested stealing content not available under the terms he feels are reasonable. If the terms don’t work for him, he should choose not to use the content rather than suggest that, although it’s not fair to the creator (his words), he can get the content elsewhere in violation of the creator’s terms. That’s advocating theft, not thieving.

This is not to characterize my feelings about copyright, only to examine Dave’s position, his qualifications to make certain statements, and the meaning of his words.

So, no, I would not apologize and it was not an ad hominem attack, because it was not aimed at Dave, but the underpinning of his statements.