This is not correct. There is no exemption for Apple devices

You seem to referencing from a older exemption for self serviceability if your smartphone can do 1,000 cycles and retain 80% battery. Specifically - B 1.1 (1) (c) (ii) (b) . Here is the link - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Article 11 of the new regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...) covers exemptions but nothing to do with 1,000 cycles or Apple as far as i can see.

▲

parl_match 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

> This is not correct. There is no exemption for Apple devices

It was not said that Apple was exempted. What was said is that Apple complied with the exemption rules.

▲

calf 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

It was not said explicitly but it was a straightforward implication. The replier then pointed out the exemption rule is outdated therefore the implied consequence is wrong and the original line of reasoning was misinformation, and thus would be the greater error. Humans

	▲	parl_match a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> It was not said explicitly but it was a straightforward implication It really, really wasn't. All it said is that Apple became compliant. Now you're contorting to dig your heels in, so I think this conversation is over. Have a good day.