> 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.

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 The replier then pointed out the exemption rule is outdated therefore the implied consequence is wrong and the original line of reasoning was misinformation, and thus would be the greater error.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

	▲	kstrauser 37 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The replier was wrong, though. They misread it and skipped over the part they thought wasn’t there.
	▲	parl_match 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It was not said explicitly but it was a straightforward implication It really, really wasn't. All it said is that Apple became compliant with their current offerings. Now you're contorting to dig your heels in, so I think this conversation is over. Have a good day.