For the purposes of this thread, I think we should stick to the specific Switch 1 family of hardware.
However! You bring up a very good point about how Nintendo themselves should be viewing their hardware. They should look at Switch 2 as an expansion of the Switch ecosystem. The purpose of the Switch 2 hardware (which, IMO it serves) is to fix its problems (the EShop actually works with 0 glitches instead of 8 glitches/buffering issues/loading issues a minute) while extending the capabilities of the hardware.
Nintendo went more vertical than Gunpei Yokoi’s lateral thinking… and I think this was the right decision given that Nintendo is still rather unchallenged directly.
But that’s not to say erosion won’t occur, if Switch 2 sells better than Switch 1, it will be the last console with this approach to do so. As it just means that the lateral concept finished selling new customers on it later than the original (I’ll get to that later). The reason why it will erode is because, indirectly, mobile and notebook tech is slowly encroaching… an example of this is Apple’s Airplay, primarily used for professional and educational applications… basically you can put your MacBook second screen anywhere using Bluetooth, rather easily too; it’s just two clicks or a swipe and click away (using control center from the top bar or menu). And in time, other companies will be moving in this direction (if they’re not already there). It’s not so much that Apple, Google, or Linux are stealing existing Nintendo customers, it’s that they’re taking a greater share of potential new customers… I think the only way Nintendo customers are leaving (permanently) is if they get tired of Nintendo’s IPs, or more pressing life issues preclude them from playing. And to clarify, they’re not taking ALL new customers, just a greater share. So I use “erosion” because it’s slow, I’d expect Switch 4 holding the same pattern will still be up around 130-140 million units, just not the ~160 million of Switch.
Lateral thinking is not so much intended to keep existing consumers, but to attract new ones. Sometimes (like with the N64, Gamecube, and Wii U) the new concepts aren’t very compelling, and people might instead keep with the old platforms or jump to competing platforms that better represent the experience they expect… especially when the new direction (Gamecube) was too similar to competing existing platforms, and arguably done much worse. N64 went full 3D and away from the rendered graphics approach catching on in late SNES; and Wii U was attempting a dual-screen asymmetrical… you know… type direction; it didn’t sell well.
Anyway, that’s why I think Switch 2’s vertical and ecosystem expanding move was the very best thing Nintendo could have done, and why I think they should think of Switch 2 as an extension of the Switch 1 family.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
