It's that final part the "removal of toxic materials" that seems to be the sticking point. EPEAT isn't just concerned with the materials a device is built with, or the conditions that it is built in, but how easy it is to break down and recycle. We assume either to be put into component parts for spares or melted down and turned into new devices.

And it's in this area that Apple seems to be falling behind. Apple's computers have never been particularly easy to get into, strip apart, and replace. Even Apple's most accessible computer, the Mac Pro () is far less modular than many other computers on the market.

And other products such as the , and offer even fewer choices for upgrades. You can't remove and upgrade the graphics card, or insert new sound cards, for example. In fact, your options are limited to installing extra memory (typically easy) and perhaps upgrading the hard drive (typically difficult).

Of course, you can argue (and we often do) that this focus produces a small selection of products that always work in a uniform manner: the software is designed to work on the machine as it is sold, and the lack of internal messing around by customers keeps everything in line. Compared to the fragmentation of the Windows-based PC market (which is also showing in the Android market) it's one reason why Apple Macs work so much better than other computers.