The government has a mandate to buy a certain percentage of technology that falls under EPEAT standards - something like 95% to account for tech that can't meet it. So it may still be possible for federal agencies to buy some Apple devices, but many will probably refrain from doing so just to help make sure they stay within the law on this.

Apple has calculated that design is better than ease of recycling. They have been moving this direction for a while, but the completely non-serviceable Retina display MacBook Pros are what likely tipped the scale.

Right, but why withdraw products that were already certified?

Presumably because they'd like the EPEAT standards changed, and they think the best way to do that is to make a big show of pulling out, rather than have one model after another fail to make the cut.

Thus they're going to find out in short order whether EPEAT is serious about working with them on their new design directions. If they are, then great: new standards are promulgated and Apple's back in the fold. If not, then this was a big story for a few days in July: The Band-aid came off quick, which is usually good PR.

I don't know what the standards are so I can't make any sort of informed guess about if they need to be changed or not. But why does EPEAT need to work with Apple to amend the standards to accommodate their new design direction? Apple chose their new design direction fully aware of the EPEAT standards. You can't blame EPEAT for that and get mad when they don't adjust standards for you. I'm not sure how many people really care, but it seems SF Dept. of Environment cares.

where did you see this?

I believe that Retina display devices are too hard to disassemble to qualify for the program.

Is this an all-or-nothing thing? All other Macs are just as hard or easy to disassemble as ever. And iPhones or iPads are much harder to disassemble than the Retina MacBook Pro.

The EPEAT rules required that 95% of your products comply with gold to keep your gold.