You are comparing apples to oranges. Do you really think Skype circa '98 is as demanding of an app as modern console chat, lobby, match-making, etc service? Also, is not an arguement of "could it have run" on Switch hardware. But did they want to put resources towards it vs gaming.

When a system (Switch) is reducing its CPU utilization to reduce heat/power in portable mode, that means it has nothing extra to throw at any type of application. This is why teh Switch OS, unlike XboxOne/PS4/WiiU, doesn't reserve any CPU for OS or background tasks. The decision to utilize a smartphone application vs having it baked it definitely took Switch hardware utilization into the equation. I would argue it was a primary reason.

This is possibly true. They could just abandon the idea and keep whatever version of online play is in Switch now.

It definitely needs wireless headset support and ability to remain active in background.

Skype came out in 2003 and it had freaking Video chat, while still being compatible with much older computers. It also had high quality audio if your mic was up to snuff. Not to mention you could create rooms pretty much in the same way you can create a chat party today. I'm not comparing apple to oranges, and yes Skype being able to do things such as video conference is as demanding as todays voice chat apps which are not demanding at all. Dont try to put all the online service together, we are obviously talking about its biggest problem which is voice chat.

Or we could just wait for the app to be fully functional...

They clearly released it now because they wanted to push the Splatoon companion service without having to integrate it later. All the missing features or functions will probably added via updates in the months preceding the official launch of the service.

I wouldn't be AS harsh if you could use the mic in the smart phone like Discord, but no, I gotta get a head set and adapter for not only the phone, but the Switch as well.

I don't think this affects the Switch as a whole. Nintendo has never had stellar online but their systems minus the Wii U have sold great figures in recent memory without stellar online. I myself will pay for the online functionality in games and the VC streaming service, however, until there is a way to voice chat without going through the hassle of headphones, I will avoid the app at all costs.

No, the thread is talking about Switch's online functionality which is an entire suite of functionality. We're hypothesising reasons why Nintendo didn't make it part of the core system. 

You are arguing hardware capabilty, which I am not. I'm stating there are a finite amount of processing power/battery/etc and it makes sense that Nintendo thought about the big picture and decided they could solve potential issues during portable mode by off-loading the app and features to your phone. Especially, considering the user would likely need their phones when portable to get online in the first place.

I never said Switch isn't fully capable. Just that they can remain as fully pressed on gaming as they want to by not having to process the background app at the same time.

See, that is where I have to disagree. As someone who works in software and launches new functionality all the time, I have to say this approach is not smart. First impressions are everything. Nintendo should not luanch this until its ready. Simple as that. 

In software we do launch sometimes with what we consider the MVP of a product. i.e. not fully functional, but the core functionality that still represents a high-quality product and then continue to add new features as they are finished. 

For this app, the MVP should not be something that promotes negative reactions to the application. The support for wireless headsets and being able to be active in background should be part of MVP. 

It is....annonimized metadata.  That's some gold to market researchers and they would be willing to pay.

Nintendo is not above the same tactics as other large companies that have taken to datamining their own customers for additional revenue.

Secondarily, I also believe it was to off load network trafffic on Nintendo servers. 

While it would be mininal traffic, compared to game traffic, it would still impose a cost that Nintendo figured out how to get you to pay for instead.

There's some truth to that though. Being able to control every aspect of the development pipeline from start to finish makes games come out fast. If Nintendo made multiplatform games for XB1, PS4, and PC they'd have a much harder time getting games out on time. Gotta make sure the game runs on every PC configuration. Gotta set up different servers/updates/DLC for all 3 platforms. Gotta make your games up to graphical standards for all 3 systems (this means the need for 1080/60fps on the PC version).

And once they sell the actual game everybody gets a cut. Right now Nintendo makes a huge profit on games because they have their own little monopoly setup. Nintendo sees $45 from every $60 game sale. If they went multiplat they'd have to shell out for publishing, marketing, and console fees. 

Yeah they would still self publish, and they'd get good exclusivity deals. I'd kill somebody for PS4 exclusive games made by Nintendo. As far as PC goes I think they'd be taking a huge loss due to depressed game prices on steam (they either sell their game for $30 on steam, or lose sales to competition), and Valve's 30% cut.