A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.
Again, your article didn't support the points you were making. If you don't like people pointing that out, then find the right articles that support your point the first time instead of getting offended.
There was?! I never heard of that - "under $X" is pretty much standard parlance for describing just about any product that cost $X - $1 (or $X - $0.01). If a product is $19.99, then it's "under 20 dollars!" even though after sales tax, it'd be slightly over. It's maybe a bit silly, but that's the way it's always been.
And for the last time, the iMac competed with the under $1000 machines because it included a monitor, which some $999 machines didn't. One of the articles I quoted said so.
One thing I really hate is having to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over...
Well, you never would have heard that argument from me, at least, because the Performa 410 back in 1993 was cheaper than the iMac, and so were certain members of the UMAX C500 series back in the clone era (I think I pointed the latter out a few times in this thread, in fact). It was the cheapest at the time it came out, though, by far, and it was also the cheapest machine from Apple in recent memory.
And I retracted that argument, which was based on only one of my articles. You do seem to like to keep dwelling on it, though.
You were the one trying to make some sort of distinction there. I was replying to "you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong." I had an article, rather than a web site, but you decided to accuse me of making it up and/or lying. I don't appreciate that.
One part of the argument, which wasn't even a main point. You still haven't convinced me that the iMac was in the upper range of the consumer market (which is what the prosumer market is, fyi), or that the market hasn't changed a bit since 1998.
You were claiming that $500 was the cut-off.
Funny how "under-$500" was the low-end until I pointed out a Mac that was under $500, and now that's not enough anymore. So in order to qualify for the low-end segment of the market, the machine must be equal in price to the absolute lowest product in that segment of the market?
What about a $450 Dell? Is that not a low-end machine? After all, it's under $500, but only by $50! What would you call it?
What about a $400 Dell? It's well under $500, but still more than your $300 machines! Is it not low-end?
Taking the cheapest Dell, the $360 one, and adding the most basic service plan that they offer (which includes such luxuries as 30-day telephone support) brings the total to $587. Does that suddenly make it not a low-end machine?
What happens if you take one of your $300 machines and custom-configure it to add features like some more RAM, a bigger hard drive, XP Pro instead of XP Home, or whatever and bump the price to $501? Does that magically transform it into a different class of machine?
Do you understand that these classifications are subjective?
For the record, I agree that the mini is overpriced. Doesn't make it not a low-end machine, though. Look at the parts it's made of. Look at the audience it's targeted against. Look at what it's intended to be used for. It's a low-end machine, for people who'd like a low-end machine but are willing to pay a little extra for a better OS (after all, even Dell's cheapest machine, at $360, becomes $510 if you go with XP Pro).
Apparently it did compete well - the original iMac was a huge seller for a really long time. Again, for quite a few months it was the highest selling desktop model on the entire market.