"You can disagree as much as your heart desires, but that does not change the fact that the success of a product is measured against its predecessor."
So your definition of success means any U.S. Swimmer post Phelps will be considered a failure no matter how many gold metals he collects unless and until he beats Phelps records? No Laker or Bulls team will be a "champion" until the team strings together at least a threepeat!
Wii U so far is not as successful as Wii this far into launch, but it is by far successful in moving more units over the same launch window than other players in the video game console market. Nintendo has succeeded in moving products relatively close to their announced goal for the year, with obviously more titles, as well as marketing and advertising budget to make a push next year.
3DS was also pronounced "dead" months into its nascent sales period. I wouldn't bet against Wii U's "success" simply by mincing with words of how you define success. My own ad hoc checking of Wii U supply by online store pick up availability is that the bigger markets still show unavailable or limited supply while smaller markets show available supply. Wii U is selling at a healhty clip against what Nintendo is manufacturing, and that number is a much higher number than the HD twins were able to ship over their launch period. That to me is guts and confidence in your customer base.
No matter how many nay sayers want to base gaming on processor speed or wattage consumed, at the end number of players and dollars spent towards each console and games determine success of the product. And whether the company can translate those dollars into profits determines its success. Nintendo doesn't rely on subsidy from other divisions to produce gaming experience proftably. As a gamer, it's a success in my book.
