Like the title asks, why do people act like Wii isn't following the exact same strategy the Wii followed?  I see this mostly from Nintendo fans, seemingly to explain away the Wii U's sales troubles.  Their analysis is that Nintendo should have done a better job of emulating the Wii, which would have probably made the Wii U blow up like the Wii did.  I assume they think Nintendo followed a strategy more in line with the Gamecube.  My problem with this is that Nintendo followed the EXACT same plan they did with the Wii.  I'll break this down by price, controller, and graphical power.

Price

Nintendo seems to always try to be the cheaper of the consoles in any given gen, which is true of the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U.  However, this is where I think the similarities between the Wii U and Gamecube pretty much end. 

Controller

Just like with the Wii, the first thing that is really meant to draw people in is the controller.  Where the Wii used a rectangular motion controller, the Wii U uses a tablet controller, which was most likely trying to tap into the tablet craze that happened around its development (not really a craze, of late.)  On both the Wii and Wii U's retail box, the controller has equal or greater emphasis than the console itself.  The Gamecube's controller, on the other hand, was not the big draw to the system.  In fact, it was basically a unique take on the standard dual analog controller.

Power

Just like the Wii, the Wii U is the weakest of the 3 systems.  In terms of graphical output, the Wii was basically a few small steps above the Xbox from the gen prior, while the Wii U is basically a small step above the PS3 from last gen.  The Gamecube, however, was on par with the PS2 and Xbox, with each console having its own pros and cons, but Xbox coming out on top.  This helps with keeping the price down and isn't really a turn off for casuals.

As you can see, the Wii U's strategy falls more in line with Nintendo's successful Wii, and not just in name and similar console design, than it does with not so steller selling Gamecube.  While I agree Nintendo could do a better job at advertising, its not like the Wii had extremely different/better ads.  I think the truth lies in that many of the casuals that entered the market because of the Wii have either left the market, and are fine now with phone and tablet games, or upgraded to core gamers.  Unfortunately for Nintendo, I don't think this is really something they can fix.

Penny for your thoughts.

People just call it GC 2.0 cause of the sales, nothing really to do with the console.

Ive seen that argument from certain members and I agree with you, WiiU leans more towards the Wii than the GameCube in terms of philosophy. Plus nintendo still emphasise use of the WiiMote and nunchuck in most of their own multiplayer games. I don't know what would be an ideal Wii followup according to these people.

Actually, people call it the dreamcast 2.0, because it's sales reflect that, calling it a gamecube 2.0 is a compliment

Nintendo were stupid to not advertise it. It's back to the regular GameCube times where Nintendo seemed allergic with advertisments.

The Wii was advertised like hell here when it first came out.

I agree with your point, there are some who refer  to it that way specifically because of sales.  However, there are also plenty of others who have alluded that there is something wrong in Nintendo's plan and that they need to change their strategy to be more like the Wiis, allowing it to catch that magic, again. My point is that they almost followed the Wii strategy to a tee, but it hasn't resulted in success.

The Wiimote was a means to an end, the goal being to make gaming accessible to more consumers. The Wii U controller on the other hand is a GameCube controller with a touchscreen added on, it is clearly similar to the GameBoy Advanced being used as a controller for the GameCube.

About the price, it is more expensive than what Wii was at launch, and to make matters worse the economy is in a much worse shape than it was in 2006.

The Wii U is a GameCube HD made to look like a successor to the Wii, so Nintendo developers can make games they like to develop, not games for other people.

Which brings me to the important argument, the games.

New Super Mario Bros. U - a rushed game, made only so they could have a Mario game at launch, Nintendo still refuses to put as much effort in 2D Mario as they do in 3D Mario, this lack of effort has started to show in sales numbers

Nintendo Land - a collection of tech demos with Nintendo IPs splashed on, Wii Sports and Wii Fit were devoid of any of Nintedo's old IPs

Super Mario 3D World - a 3D Mario game with elements from 2D Mario shoehorned in,

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - an HD remake of a GameCube game, I hope this one is obvious

Pikmin 3 - sequel to a series started on the GameCube

Wii Party U and Wii Fit U, along with Wii Sports U should have been at launch, instead they got extremely delayed, and in Wii Sports Club's case it is available only online, sold in pieces and it is only improved versions of the sports from the first Wii Sports.

Wii revolutionized gaming, Wii U does not.

It's not a Wii. The Wii was about renouncing the traditional in order to expand their audience. The Wii U tries to play the best of both worlds by trying to balance tradition with new gameplay options and fails at doing either.

The people mentioning that Nintendo tried to keep the price down are suffering from severe selective memory as well. Wii U launched for $349.99, that's only $50 less than the PS4.

I think it's been a disaster releasing games that you need previous console's controllers!!!

all this is due to the game pad, it should be ditched and sold as an extra

a wiiu bundled with a pro controller and being overwhelmingly cheaper than competition will sell more than P.S.4 + Xbox1

it's not to late to 180 on it, even a new ds is out with 3d taken out