You make a false assumption that halogen-free directives are about being green. It's as much about safety as anything else:
For some applications there is a concern that halogenated plastic materials will release corrosive and toxic gases if ignited in a fire. The corrosive element of these gases has the potential to damage electronics wherever the smoke travels, and the toxic element can be potentially hazardous to persons if they cannot easily evacuate from the area.
Applications where corrosion potential is of particular concern include communications data centers and phone switching stations with large amounts of expensive electronics. As a case in point the fire called “the worst disaster in telecommunications history” occurred on May 8th 1988 in a Hinsdale, IL Central Office facility for Illinois Bell. The fire cut local service to 35,000 suburban Chicago phone customers and was estimated to have cost many millions of dollars in recovery cost. In the after effects of the fire the central processor of the phone switch, which was not directly involved in the fire, had to be replaced reportedly due to the effects of acid corrosion.
The toxicity of smoke is of highest concern within enclosed spaces where means of escape by persons are limited; examples include mass transit rail cars, ships, and Offshore Oil and Gas platforms. There have been several tragic fires that have occurred involving transit vehicles over recent years that have brought heightened concern to this issue. In a February 2003 incident, news reports of a fire involving two trains in a Daegu, South Korea subway station told of how toxic fumes and heavy black smoke prevented firefighters from making a quick rescue of those trapped. 120 were killed and many others injured in that incident.
http://www.gocsc.com/uploads/white_papers/E47B142616A84C3F90...
They need to let the market decide.
Why not make one of everything like Dell and let the market decide?
Offering the _best_ of everything is. So shipping a crappy SSD is dumb. (Personally I strongly suspect it's because they can get closer to that 100% hardware markup they love on a lower-end model, than because it's greener. But I'm sure "green" sounds better.)
But seriously, when was the last time an Apple computer has the fastest CPU? Or the largest laptop screen. Or anything with a card reader. Or blue ray... Just pointing out that they are entirely willing to avoid the absolute top of the line and have done so consistently.
Maybe it's a margin thing as you say, I don't know...
In what sense is the SSD you haven't paid for that they do not offer, 'yours'?
Sure wish Apple would ship the Intel drives. Perhaps they can't get a low enough price on them.
Or, alternately, that Samsung would get with the program and do the kind of controller work required to make these things go faster. (Whatever Intel's doing--see the anandtech.com massive article.)
Or, perhaps both Apple and Samsung could get together and implement the critical TRIM command (see http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=8).