It isn't that much of a fantasy land as it is harsh reality.
The post was good, but the premises were all wrong. "Non-competition" isn't literally about not competing, it's about creating new markets. Nintendos literal non-competition was over the day Twilight Princess came out.
The non-competition is Nintendos growth strategy, where they seek growth from overshot consumers and consumers who haven't been interested in videogames earlier. After getting a foothold on these markets, they take a step towards the core audience, where they intend to push the competition to a nice little niche and potentially pop them out of the market.
Considering 1st party games have been practically the only system sellers on Wii, Nintendo wasn't off at all saying they don't need 3rd parties. The 3rd parties do play their part in Nintendos strategy, if not in other ways, by making core games to compete games on the HD consoles.
There's also a term "secondary gamer", that is important to Nintendo. Nintendo wants the primary gamer to get the console to the house and get the secondary gamers to buy games for it, along with the primary gamer (someone bought the console for Wii Fit and some other in the family buys SMG, as an example).
Due to these secondary gamers (and how Wii differentiates itself), it's much less relevant for Nintendo if a competing console is in the same house with Wii, than the other way around.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
