The problem with the Wii U gamepad is that while you can make an argument that its concept of asymmetrical gameplay is more innovative, the number of opportunities for it to be practically utilized were so limited that it made the entire concept nothing but a quaint novelty.

As I stated, I dislike motion controls. Motion controls are not pointer controls. That is all there is to it. If you like those controls, good for you. But those are not pointer controls, they are motion controls which I am firmly against.

And all these issues were apparent from Day 1. I always failed to see value vs alternative approaches to same problems, such as "auxiliary info display". How does 2nd screen (requiring shifting visual focus) solve that any better than having modal window/view on main screen triggered by button or gyro tilt? The only potential value is in shared-screen local multiplayer re: "hidden info" but multiple WiiU 2nd displays were not well supported, making it moot. All this is at cost of hardware budget & draining system performance to drive 2nd screen. For... being able to play tethered to WiFI while you sit on toilet? OK.

Basically it is about 3 in 1. Normal modern controller. Twin Remote/Nunchuk. Instant extra controller for local multiplayer (simple NES-style + gyro). EDIT: The last really probably makes it more like 2.5 in 1. None of those is especially noteworthy on it's own (gyro is hardly unique), but they all fulfill specific niche/mode, and are all portable, which is point of system. (if you never use it's portable functionality, all those could probably be equally/better fulfilled by discrete controls at same price point minus battery/screen/etc) So ultimately it's about a very space efficient "packing" of 3 distinct control modes into portable/handheld compatible package. That's it.

I don't think that's really conceptually amazing, it just accomplishes it's very humble goals well.  In all honesty, not all that many people probably place high value on ALL of it's design goals, which is why similar implementations on smartphone gaming have not been especially popular on their own without Nintendo brand marketing. But as platform that can 'demand' attention, it appeals to broader audience. It's pretty easy to fundamentally question WiiU's value re: apparent goals. It's pretty hard to imagine alternate scheme that accomplishes what Switch does out of box re: it's 2.5 in 1 approach, in context of dual handheld portability and home console application.

I'd say Wii U pad. At least the damn thing works, and is great for some games, like Mario Maker. My buddy bought a Switch and Mario w/ Rabbids not too long ago. We can't get through a single co-op mission without the Joycons disconnecting at least 3 or 4 times. And he's only sitting like 5 feet away from the console dock. I thought Nintendo fixed that problem, but I guess not.

Never had any problems myself TBH. I guess it's case dependent since your's might be an early version. 

I don't think so. He bought it brand new just a month or so ago.

The conversation here is not about execution; rather, it was made clear this conversation is about concept. Both of your paragraphs are about execution . The first paragraph starts off talking about concept, "The Wii U gamepad had some nice ideas" but ultimately breaks down to a conversation about execution which, in this case, is off the topic.

Well like I said, I never came across those issues, so it could really be a defective unit, that or the Joy-Con are out of battery but I doubt that. 

What changes in technical detail/execution do you think avoid those issues?
I can't imagine any, which is why I frame those as pertaining to concept itself.
My comment re: Switch addresses 3in1 (or 2.5in1+portable) concept,
which is humble but that doesn't prevent it being successful, it's implementation just has to not get in way.

I do not understand or follow your line of logic. There is a distinct difference between execution of an idea and the idea itself. Not every good idea is executed well. Not every bad idea is poorly executed. The point of contention here is the amount of ideas themselves and not how those ideas were used. To answer your first question: more hardware horsepower. Switch works so well because it does not have to power two devices at once. It is using around the same amount of horsepower as Wii U but the power is being focused differently. With more horsepower, some of the ideas of Wii U could have become more feature complete. On the other hand, ignoring features Wii U gamepad has that joycons do not have, like a built in screen and microphone is kind of irresponsible. Both were used well but are features that you are ignoring for one reason or another - like the fact that they were not utilized to their fullest potential.

I could Skype with my children using the Wii U controller. Was it the best implementation of a Skype like program? No. But the idea is a good one. Can I do that with Switch's joycons? Most definitely not. Conversely, I can split the joycon into two separate controllers for out-of-the-box multiplayer. Is it the most ideal form of a two controller design? No. But the idea is phenomenal. The Switch as a whole is a better executed product (and better marketed), but the controllers and more specifically, the ideas that powered them, are what is being discussed in this topic. Despite the fact that I believe joycon are better implemented with Switch than the gamepad is implemented with Wii U, that does not mean their concept is better; rather, it could imply the execution of what is there was better. And you have to separate the two because right now, you are not speaking on concepts; rather, you are speaking on the execution of the concepts of each device which is off topic for this discussion.