It does not. And it's not a "no tech" rule, it's a guiding principle of not investing in what you don't understand. There's generally something smart to do somewhere in the market that you understand, so why waste time and energy on something you don't? Throw it on the "too hard" pile and move on.
Follow up to your edit - and I'm totally familiar with the "Circle of Competence" philosophy, but given Buffett has stated he won't invest in things which he doesn't understand, and he's said he doesn't understand tech, then it's safe to say that he has a "no tech" rule. I've always been unsure of how to interpret the circle of competence thing, as people always develop new skills, so personally I look at it as "only invest in things with which you are most familiar".
Yes. What I'm saying is that conceptually I understand Buffett's implementation of the circle of competence, it's just that his circle seems immutable, and I believe for many people they develop insights into new areas/categories of investing, while he seems to have focused on a specific area for his entire lifetime.
Maybe it's not about not understanding tech per se, but about not understanding the company.
If they feel like they understand how Apple works by now, that would make it qualify as not not-understanding, and thus it would not break the "rule".
Apple is a tech company but in the eyes of Berkshire maybe they are predictable enough regardless of what they produce (i.e. in terms of their cash flow, product strategy, etc).
And there you've identified the nuance that makes Apple successful where other tech companies have failed. They may be technology driven, but they indeed produce consumer goods. Apple wants to be in every household. Look at their product lines vs. some of the other software/hardware integrated companies trying to push consumer products. Put on your average idiot hat (mine is stuck to my head) and it becomes plainly obvious that Apple makes products for you and markets them in ways that you can understand.
