That doesn't help your "Wii fizzled out after two years flat" argument in the slightest, since you are now saying it fell apart in 2011, which is the fifth year, not the second or third year.

Looking at your other claims:
* 5 million drop is highly negative.
* 2011 is when the Wii collapsed when it sold 15.09 million (still higher than the peak of the competition, I might add).
* That the SNES had a strong lifecycle.

Let's look at the sales data:

* In year 4 the Wii had dropped by 5.42 million to 20.53 million from its year 3 peak of 25.95 million, a decline of 21%.
* In year 5 the Wii fell an additional 5.44 million to 15.09 million, bringing that decline to 43% from peak year 3 levels.
* In Fiscal Year 3 aligned, the SNES sold 12.03 million units, but this fell by 7.09 million to 4.94 million units during year 4, that amounts to a 59% drop.
* It wasn't until year 6, at 62% decline from the year 3 peak that the Wii had a statistical tie of decline during the SNES's 4th year alone.

Now let's draw some conclusions:

Your assertions regarding the Wii are inconsistent with your assertions regarding the SNES.

* If a 5 million drop marks a turn to failure, then surely the SNES's 7.09 million drop during its 3rd to 4th year marks it as a failure as well.
* If the Wii's decline by 43% in its 5th year from its 3rd year marks a failure, then certainly the 59% from the SNES's 3rd to 4th years marks a far greater failure.

From all of this we can deduce one of two possibilities: if the Wii failed in its 5th year then the SNES certainly failed in its 4th year, OR, if the SNES didn't fail in its 4th year, then the Wii didn't fail until its 7th year or later.

Because that would create unrealistic expectations. This is just a simple "silent" revision that improves battery life and nothing else, there's no need to make a big deal out of it, especially when their focus at the moment in on their actual new revision, the Lite.

Or you can just say Nintendo has problems with end cycle drop offs. 

The difference with the Switch is its the only hardware line they have, so I don't think "well, we'll just accept 20-40% drop offs for 2021 and 2022 as the cost of doing business in our business model" really makes much sense any more. 

Whatever you can do to eliminate that makes sense rather than just "well, 5-6 year cycles with hardware refreshes and starting from 0 again is how it was done in the 1980s" being the no.1 priority makes any sense at all. Who cares how things were done in the 1980s. 

Mid-cycle refresh boost or a more phased kinda of transition probably makes more sense when they don't have the benefit of two hardware lines especially. 

Here you are again championing Sony and Microsoft for no good reason. The Xbox One doesn't have strong legs at all, but that doesn't stop you from pretending that it does. The 3DS showed better legs and that was because of a reason that you didn't grasp: Nintendo put games on smartphones to promote their IPs which in turn led to a substantial increase for dedicated gaming hardware, so the 3DS's sixth year ended up being better than its fifth year. Nintendo shipped more than 7m units during the 3DS's sixth full fiscal year, a value that Microsoft isn't going to match with their Xbox One. Naturally, you downplayed the positive effect of Nintendo's smartphone games on their sales of dedicated gaming hardware.

Before the Switch's launch, you made it a point to tell Nintendo fans that they should be happy if the console sells 40m units lifetime because that would be good for what the Switch is; looks like Switch will have no trouble to sail past that mark. You bought into the "soft launch theory", meaning that Nintendo wasn't launching Switch in earnest until fall 2017 because its launch window games were presumably weak; we are talking about Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe here. You repeatedly proposed that Nintendo should team up with Microsoft to stand a chance in the console market and put games on Xbox; what actually happened is that Microsoft is a third party partner for Nintendo.

You have tried time and time again to analyze Nintendo in a Sony and Microsoft context and it failed you repeatedly. Now here you are acting concerned that Switch won't have strong sales after year 3, but 2020 already looks like a cakewalk, because for one, Switch still hasn't received a price cut, and two, the competition already can't keep up in 2019 and will be even worse in 2020. 2021 won't be a problem either, so it would be surprising if either the PS5 or Scarlett sold more than Switch. Given how healthy the Switch's software pipeline is, it makes the most sense to compare it to the DS, so that's the kind of sales curve you should expect, a prolonged peak.

Your obsession with a Pro model is just another chapter in your desire that Nintendo should be like Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo is doing virtually nothing of the things you want them to do and they are very successful with it. Maybe it's time that you seriously ask yourself if you actually know anything about how the console market works. You call the 3DS's sales by year 4/5 piss poor, but the Xbox One is apparently showing strong legs despite selling worse than the 3DS. You already struggle on the most fundamental level that is about comparing a couple of numbers.

That's a marketing decision on their part, but this actually is a fairly decent power improvement. It's not just a "battery increase" ... because shrinking the die node means the chip can achieve higher performance now at previous wattages.

For example the new Switch can likely run games at docked performance (over 2x performance increase) portably with this new model if the user is willing to have battery life more akin to the original Switch for that title. Which would be a nice choice for some games that run really badly in portable mode.  

And even docked, the old Switch could not run the Tegra X1 chip past 77% ... this new one would be able to go to 100% performance at least, possibly more because it's higher clocked (1.2 GHz max clock versus 1 GHz). 

Even the new LPDDR4x RAM increases memory bandwidth. 

The question is will Nintendo allow devs to use these higher performance modes ... my guess is yes they'll allow it eventually, but it'll be done quietly. 

All of that is in theory though. A smaller fab process means the potential for better performance, but honestly, it's not really a big enough boost to be worth selling the system as a "Pro" on, especially when better battery life is a better selling point for a device like Switch. 

Honestly, I think you greatly overestimate the importance of power when it comes to the Switch. People aren't buying it for its graphics. 

I mean in portable mode being able to double the performance potentially is pretty large. We'll see how that goes. 

Switch isn't driven by graphics per se, but it also is not the Game Boy or Wii where it's like "the graphics suck ass and are 10 years outdated but it doesn't matter one bit!" type of deal either. It's some where in between those two extremes.

Part of the appeal is that it can approximate large modern scale gaming experiences like BOTW, Xenoblade, DOOM, Skyrim, Dragon Quest XI, The Witcher III, Mortal Kombat, FIFA, NBA 2K, and be able to take that experience anywhere. You don't want that gap growing too large I think, when it gets to other systems being two full generations ahead you lose that aspect of the appeal and it kinda just becomes a glorified 3DS at that point.