Some of your conclusions puzzle me. Clarification would be nice.
"Sony learned nothing from the PSP’s failure" -- The PSP has sold like 70 million units or so, if I'm not mistaken. What is your threshold for failure? 80 million? 100 million? And what logic do you base that threshold on?
"Now, it’s succeeding to some degree, though it’s still far behind both of its competitors." -- What metric are you referencing here? I know total sales is a popular fan talking point, but even then, aren't the 360 and the PS3 within a couple million units of one another? And isn't the installed base virtually even? If it's sales rate, which is probably a more relevant metric from a business standpoint, isn't the PS3 ahead by a significant amount per month? Business isn't a sprint, it's a long distance event. You measure the success of your product from when your product was launched, not from when a competitor's product was launched.
I think what bothers me most about your post, however, is the way you lay down absolutes for how gaming should be, as if your preferences and opinions are shared by everyone in the entire world, without question. You don't want to play "home console" games on a portable system? That's cool. Looking at how well games like God of War, Gran Turismo, and Monster Hunter have sold on the PSP, though, makes me believe that there is certainly a market there.
Personally, I think it's foolish to point at a game and say that it doesn't belong here, or it doesn't belong there. Makes zero sense to me. Plenty of people play their portable systems at home, especially in Japan. A portable system should NOT be about exclusion, but instead about diversity. "Home console" games on Vita are perfectly fine as long as they ALSO have a good selection of bite-sized games.
Finally, declaring any system "dead" a few months into its life-cycle is laughable. It's something history tells us quite clearly is a waste of time and effort.
