Why? The N64 introduced rumble pack, a mid-generation upgrade part to put in the slot with DK64, a controller that was drastically different than anything they did prior or have done since.

GameCube was originally designed to have 3d and internet (from what I've read), had wireless controllers, was disc based rather than cartridge, introduced c-stick (their first attempt at dual stick), memory cards to take your save files to another person's device, etc.

The PS2 was the first to use DVDs. Does that make it a less traditional console?

The NES and SNES introduced a lot of game changing stuff as well. Not sure what you think a traditional console is...

Something that basically repeats what the past versions of itself did. The PS controller hasn't really changed a lot since PS1, or at least not the drastic kind of changes we are used to with Nintendo controllers. And the GameCube one was a very unique kind of disc, not the typical dvd like PS uses, which is why I included that bit of information. Regardless, the other parts I mentioned were far more revolutionary.

Well all consoles improves in different ways over its predecessor. The PS3 ditched the memory cards and had internal memory. The PS4 had the touch pad etc. 

Both the N64 and the GC were way more powerful than the previous gen. They were traditional consoles. The Wii and WiiU were not.

I mostly agree with you, except I don't think the Gamecube pushed the boundaries too much.  The N64 definitely did though since it was the first to do 3D and rumble.  The Gamecube was kind of like the Super-N64.  By that time it was orthodox rather than new, and as you said the 3D tech potential it had was never used.

Overall I'd say you make a good point though.  The only consoles where Nintendo played it safe were the SNES, Gamecube and Gameboy Advance.  Everything else tried to be extremely innovative whether that be good or bad.

No MS didn't have a better line up of games. Both PS4 and Xbox One was lacking in the first year or so. Please don't do that. Wii U didn't have a lot either. I got them all at launch and remember the droughts.

None of things separate it from its competitors. PS1 and PS2 had far more distruptive change than either of those platforms.

Actually none of those platforms were disruptive.  PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube...none were disruptive.

Disruptive means that functionality suffers so that you can improve some other aspect: reliability, convenience or price.  For example Google Stadia is potentially disruptive because the games all look like they perform worse, but you don't have to buy a console.  So functionality suffers but people save money compared to what came before.  

PS1, PS2, N64, and Gamecube were not disruptive, because they improved the specs compared to the previous generation and the prices all went up.  It's just that with Playstation the hardware was more expensive but with the N64 the cartridges were more expensive.  As a whole, both systems were more expensive compared to the SNES, the leader of the previous generation.  That is the opposite of disruptive.

The article is just silly really. Why do they need to do something different? If the traditional home console is something people really want then why is that bad? I'm all for innovation but, innovation just for the sake of it is dumb.