Apologies are very easy (if you actually are sorry). You just say specifically what you did wrong and apologise for that. (Ideally you then also say how you will avoid making the same mistake in the future.)

What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not.

Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for?

That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology.

He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.

It's offensive to "apologize" when you do not actually regret your behavior. It rings false because it is false. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate the audience.

Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.