I definitely disagree with that naming scheme. Consoles are not PCs, and for good reason, you don't want to wonder whether the Switch game you buy will actually run on your Switch. And with a yearly naming scheme it would be terribly confusing what it is you are actually buying. There need to be clear naming differences between generations, not just throw on a year which is ambiguous as to whether its a new system or an update to the existing system. Apparently even the Wii U was confusing to people, a Wii 2012 would have been far more confusing.

As I think the next system will again be a hybrid they should definitely stick with the Switch name. Switch 2 would be perfectly fine. Just adding a descriptor after the "Switch" would be confusing now because they already have Switch Lite. If they make a Switch Pro or whatever as well it'd be really hard for people who don't pay a lot of attention to video games to know the difference between this gen and next gen of Switches, and certainly so on a yearly naming scheme like you suggest. Switch 2 is the clearest easiest name with zero confusion. Maybe they'll even come up with some major feature in addition to it being hybrid and name it after that new feature and drop the Switch name altogether.

I'd argue against such a move for two reasons; The name "Nintendo" in itself is synonymous with gaming, so adding an additional permanent gaming brand is simply unnecessary. Instead I would suggest that Nintendo needs to stress the name Nintendo in all their future hardware products, as they have in the past with quite a lot of hardware systems, ei;

NINTENDO Game & Watch

NINTENDO Entertainment System

NINTENDO Gameboy (later versions in the Gameboy line didn't use NINTENDO in their brandnames, which I consider a mistake even though they were successful) 

Super NINTENDO Entertainment System

NINTENDO 64

NINTENDO Gamecube

NINTENDO DS (or NINTENDO Dual Screen)

NINTENDO 3DS

NINTENDO Switch

etc

Wii and WiiU are actually two of very few hardware plattforms that didn't use NINTENDO in their brand names, which at first glance might seem weird. But remember that Nintendo desperately needed to reinvent themselves when they released the Wii. So dropping the NINTENDO brand for the Wii made totally sense back then, and might actually have added market value to the Wii.

WiiU is a story in itself. I think Nintendo wanted to do too much with it, making it virtually impossible to brand it and market it. It was also clearly rushed to the market, making things even worse.

Nintendo made some strategical blunders with the Wii which let them lose momentum, and I believe those blunders were what forced them to rush the WiiU to market. Already in the summer of 2009 Nintendo should have bundled Wii remotes based on Wii Motion Plus technology with every Wii, instead of waiting until May 2010. By waiting that long, Nintendo let PlayStation 3 capture part of the Wii market with their superior PlayStation Move. I also think Nintendo should have released a WiiHD in 2010, and perhaps also a Wii Remote with a built-in analog stick (similar to PlayStation Move). By doing so, they could have extended the life of the Wii, and not rush the WiiU to market. I think that WiiU would have been a totally different product without the rush.

Nintendo should not do that. Sony and Microsoft have gaming brands because they are big conglomerates that do tons of different stuff. Nintendo is a gaming company, and as such Nintendo is the only branding they need..

Yes. It should. And their next console should be named the Super Switch. Then the Switch 64. Switch Cube. Wii Switch. Wii Switch U. Switch Switch. Etc, etc

I knew a family once that called every console a Playstation and every handheld a Nintendo. Which got very funny when they got a PSP, a Wii and an Xbox 360 around 10 years ago. The results: A Nintendo PSP, a Playstation Wii and a Playstation from Xbox...

Nah. Nintendo usually changes things up enough. Besides, I don't see dedicated video game hardware surviving long enough to have more than a few Nintendo platforms named Switch.

A bit off topic, but I think the problem with the Wii U was the asymmetrical play style it demanded of having one tablet and then several wii remotes. Asymmetrical play can be interesting in specific games, not as the primary feature of a console. When it was announced and I found out you just have one controller/tablet per system I thought that was just the most bizarre thing. And basically it seemed the reason for doing that was so that people could still play when the TV was being used, which sure in families that can happen but you don't base the design of an entire console around something that sometimes happens and then that design forces you to have only one uncomfortably large controller and any multiplayer game has to be forced to play in an asymmetrical control style. It was just bad choices built on top of one another to achieve a novel but unnecessary goal. Even the name "Wii U", emphasis on the "U" says this is for you and no one else cuz there's just one controller.

Agree with you on what Wii's successor should have been. A simple Wii HD with updated Wii remotes that launched before the end of the gen so it could pick up some major multi-plat 3rd party games that were coming out on 360/ps3. But then again the disaster that was Wii U was a halfway point between Wii and Switch so maybe we wouldn't have the awesomeness of the Switch if they hadn't created that failure half measure system first.

The brand's name is already Nintendo.

I have to agree that Nintendo is the brand. I always just call Nintendo consoles "Nintendo". Except for the mobile ones, those I call "Gameboy". Wasn't quite sure what to do with the switch in the beginning. But I call it the "Nintendo" now. If I'm in a trip with my son and he is bored, I don't ask him if he wants to play with the Switch. I ask him if he wants to play Nintendo!

Nintendo IS the brand.