I agree with your general idea (though I take issue with your utter misuse of the term "FUD"), but I disagree with the claims you used to support it.
For instance, the reason the G4 was labeled as a supercomputer was because it was capable of 1 gigaflops, which was, by the definition of that day, a supercomputer subject to export restrictions and the like. In comparison, the Pentiums of that day were lagging quite a ways behind when it came to floating point operations, though, as you pointed out, their superiority in integer-based operations made them superior choices for most real-world work of the time. But there were a few scattered years here and there where if you were doing particular types of work, the G-line of chips really were the superior choice. That just wasn't the case for most people.
And the switch to Intel came as no surprise to anyone, as you said, since it was pretty clear that Apple had gotten screwed over by IBM. Steve Jobs famously promised 3 GHz G5 processors within 12 months back when the PowerMac G5 first launched, but three years later, they were still stuck at 2.7 GHz.
As for the current Apple comments being discussed, the only thing I find remarkable about them is that they think any specific competing product is worth addressing. It's common for underdogs to compare themselves against the giants, but it's odd for giants to compare themselves against underdogs, and as the most profitable company in the world, Apple is definitely the giant in the industry at the moment.