Sometimes they do. Read my reply to Segasanshiro. PS4 is a strong reason for Xbox One trailing Switch. It's more powerful at a comparable price. 

Most of the things that I wrote worked for 360. 

PS4 Pro is a modest success. Depending on how many years this generation goes, it could become a great success with 4k adoption expected to expand quickly.

Likely from Digital Foundry who actually know what they are talking about. Switch is a down clocked Tega X1 Second gen Maxwell. It was downclocked for battery life. It's approx 400 docked and 157 undocked but it's not the whole story. NS uses modern chipset and API. Nvidia is better at using those flops than AMD does. They get more performance per than AMD.

1. They might have to lose money to regain territory, but I think it is necessary for revitalizing the Xbox brand. Then when in a strong position again, they can return to more profitable times. 

2. It will take time, but if MS has stopped with new generations, this investment will pay off in the future and possibly save the Xbox brand. 

3. Once again, Microsoft's deep deep pockets could remedy this situation. They could pay for optimizing games for Xbox One X. It could very well make the Xbox a success again. 

My entire problem is that your posts make no sense. Your original post kickstarting this thread talked about the Switch being super duper underpowered but wowzaaa it's selling at 400$!!! Completely ignoring that the hardware has nothing to do with the sales. So you start off the thread talking about power per dollar, but then don't actually make any argument toward this idea till your 3rd point, which again, is out of touch because the Switch isn't bought for it's specs, at *best* it's bought for it's relative power as a handheld but even then it's a stretch to say the X can succeed because it's performance per price compared to the Switch. Your original post just feels jumbled and starts off with a stretch.

Your response to Segasanshiro is pretty bad. There were a lot of factors for why Nintendo's system won over Sega, and while both companies ran an  agressive marketing campaign around specs, Sega's marketing was arguably even more about power than Nintendo's. What made Nintendo's console win were the games, otherwise we'd be seeing blast processing ads from Nintendo and not their losing competitor. Your point about the n64 is incoherent. You essentially say all the bad things about the n64, and then say it was less powerful because of it. "It had cartridges and while it did 64 bytes, it didn't do them well" = less powerful than the Playstation ? No. Inserting your opinion does not make something a fact. That's not how power works on an objective level. Cartridges were a big disadvantage but simply saying "this did this bad therefore it's worse" is not an argument for power. For all I know the PS1 could be more powerful than the N64 but you didn't make it very convincing. And also the PS1 had warping. Plus, we draw inspiration more so from N64 games than PS1 games, they've just aged better although i'm sure the counter argument is that the PS1 had crash and FF7. 

And honestly the PS4 did not win because of specs, it was cared about only by forum users and internet content creators but very very very few actual people cared. It was because of the better marketing, price, and brand name. Let's be real. We can't pretend like every time a company has success with powerful hardware it's because of that hardware. Consoles are much more about brand recognition and marketing than power, and diminishing returns make this more of a reality than ever. At least in the PS3 era there was a huge difference between some games. The sooner we realize graphics shouldn't matter to THAT EXTENT on a console, the quicker we can get going onto more important developments like good exclusives.

Jaguar,3D0,Neo Geo AES,CDi all more powerful than SNES from the same generation of consoles.

Willingness to overpay means ppl have disposable income that MS could have a lot of. Money is what connects the 2 situations. Unless only Nintendo fans have disposable income, of course.

Lol, that's actually funny! But I addressed the lineup problem in my post.

Yes, but that depends on the customer. People are not going to come out like they are for the Switch for a $500 at console mid gen. Nintendo is offering something novel and creative that is scarce. This is something Microsoft would probably doesnt have the creativity to accomplish. The Switches first year titles are also of an extremely high quality compared to their competition and highly sought after. Microsoft has never created a new IP themselves that was highly sought after. Seriously.....like ever.