Currently Online 
Wow, this thread is a real battleground, isn't it? A lot of entrenched positions and preemptive strikes. I'm just going to ignore the generational arguments since I have no idea why people are so angry about hyperbole.
All I can say is, if this article is accurate, then it's a blow for those who wanted wide third-party support on the Wii U. It's not always bad being the lowest common denominator in terms of technology, not unless you're too low, at which point you get dropped--and I think the Wii U might be on the wrong side of the dropping point. Developers aren't going to hold back on content for the sake of one console.
What is strange about all of this is all the talk Nintendo has done about winning back the core gamer. What were they talking about, exactly? Simply that they were going to make their own games that are intended to be played with a controller? I suppose so, though that's borderline misleading. I don't think Nintendo is going to win many people back if they lack third-party support across the board.
And honestly, all this conspiracy talk sounds a little unreal. Developers have limited time, money, and manpower, which they try to spend as efficiently as possible. Any cost/profit analysis will tell you that it's better to develop for two consoles than for one, or to lower your production values to the point where your competition is obviously superior. That's what happened to the Wii, and what might happen to the Wii U. I really don't see businesspeople, wealthy and intelligent board members, sitting around nudging each other and whispering about how they're going to get back at a potential business partner for things that happened in the 1990s.
The ones who really suffer are those who wanted the Wii U to fulfill all their gaming needs, from first-party Nintendo games to third-party blockbusters. Those are the people I feel bad for, assuming the major developers skip the Wii U. They might have some difficult choices to make.
