I know, but Mother 3 was the "only" notable GBA first party game since the end of 2004.. and you forget to mention that it came out Globally-in-Japan :P Mother is hardly noteworthy anyways.
I said the only thing that you could call bullshit is Sony throwing off the generational cycle by launching as early as they did. The impact of a headstart shouldn't be underestimated because it allows a system to build a game library before the competition arrives. The PS1 greatly benefited from this, so why should Nintendo risk that the same scenario plays out in the handheld market? Your numbers even agree that Nintendo did the right thing. You added ~20m for the GBA and deducted 30-45m from the DS while giving the PSP an increase of 10-35m units.
What's so bad about the argument that Nintendo fans don't care about lifespans is that it ignores a couple of important things:
1. Nintendo does a better job at getting their big games out early, so after three years most things are already covered.
2. Historical tie ratios show that people buy on average 6-10 games for home consoles and 3-6 games for handhelds. If it takes so few games to satisfy the average console owner and when Nintendo gets out top titles early, then it shouldn't be a mystery why satisfaction with a console purchase is reached faster among Nintendo console owners.
You want to claim that GBA owners got screwed over, but when you consider tie ratios and how many good games the GBA had, then the likelihood that your claim is true is incredibly low. The basis of your and pokoko's statements in this thread is the same: You'd like to figure out a way to say that Nintendo console owners are inherently worse than people who buy consoles of other brands.