Cry me a FUCKING river.

Alienating the expanded audience:

The controller is intimidating because of it's gigantic SIZE. Even some of the gaming press were intimidated by it's size.  

That in addition to having 2 analog sticks and a quite a few buttons.  Were it just a touch screen like most smart phones I wouldn't be claiming as much. Notice how most smart phones dropped all those other input methods to streamline the product. 

The price will be raised so they can add features like HD and an expensive complicated controllers that most of the expanded audience dont really care about.  

Nintendo hasn't been making successful expanded audience software themselves. Unless you count the marginally upgraded Nintendogs + cats and we see how that is faring sales wise.  I don't think DS leftover ideas will be enough to spark the fire that Wii had.

Alienating the "core" audience:

Non-clickable circle pads with awkward placement. They help for having extra actions in FPS games etc.  

Only one Wii U controller per console

Leaving the online structure up to 3rd parties on a title by title basis.

No built in HDD. 

No announcement of a way to transfer over the digital content they have already purchased.

First off, do you have proof that Nintendo confirmed that it wasn't a technical issue? We have no technical details about how Nintendo is implementing the streaming of video to the Wii U controller and it is entirely possible that they made a technical decision which is potentially limiting the number of controllers. Even if the hardware doesn't limit the number of controllers directly, Nintendo could be worried about the indirect limitations based on processing power; essentially, much like there is no technical reason why the PS3 can't offer 6 player split-screen games, the impact of adding an additional controler on the graphical quality of a game might be greater than Nintendo anticipates developers are willing to make.

Beyond that, it doesn't have to be a technical or a price decision it could simply be a "design" decision. It is possible that Nintendo has tunnel vision on this issue and needed feedback from consumers/developers to change their mind. Did you realize that initially Nintendo was going to release the Wiimote as being the only controller option, and only after Retro Studios convinced Nintendo of the need for the nunchuck was it included as standard equipment?

Finally, my expectations of $80 to $100 for a second controller still make it a very expensive controller and Nintendo may not believe the market can support such an expensive add on.

With all that said, being that touch screen LCD ebook readers are on the market for close to $100 with a large profit margin for retailers, they contain components that the Wii U controller probably won't (internal memory, CPU, mass storage device, memory card and USB ports etc.), the only components the Wii U controller has that these don't are cheap (buttons, analogue nubs, microphone, CMOS sensor, and a couple of LEDs), and there is 12 to 18 months before the Wii U is launched where the price of the most expensive components in the WIi U controller will fall, I don't understand why you would believe that the Wii U controller will have to sell for over $100.

That's a really easy one though, Wii U will have the functionality by default which doesn't interfere with other wireless connectivity protocols while PS3 and Vita don't come in the same package, it's all in "what's in the default SKU?" Keep in mind that the 360 from dev side can't do some things because by default, it doesn't have a HDD whereas the PS3 does, you can only truly take advantage of a console system in it's raw package to sell the most amount of games, and no, Wii Fit is not a game..... but you get my point. There is a difference in between default functionality and tacked on stuff where most devs won't be focusing on.

Look here, you're on VGC and if the viewers on this site are more interested about the words of ND over EA then thats how it is!!! You're freakin out about peoples' comments from what ND says rather than some big third party.  Me personally i dont care what any dev says about anything honestly.  It just seems you're mad about how the people on this site choose their interest.

Of course you're allowed to voice your own, as the people in this thread and on this site, just suck it up and dont whine about ND and the people that are interested in this thread.

Here's an idea, if you dont like the thread and what people are posting then just dont post anything in it.  Wait for a thread you like to post something positive.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto-explains-the-new-wii-u/story-e6frfrt9-1226071923070

They are researching ways of play if your friend brings a controller. but the basic premise for Nintendo right now is one controller per home. Because of cost.  But  since its very  possible third parties can use it if they wish.

To sum it all up

There are  no offical specs but if it is true that the WiiU screen is not HD(not 720p). THen its close, the very link u post above clarify this as its  impossible to tell(even under close examination as reported from virtually everyone. But maybe under a magnifying glas or somethin) the difference with a 1080p screen right infront of them( with a 6" ( not4.3") screen right infront  there face to make examinations).

Which means that the 802.11g connection will not be even be close to being stream the video close to the quality of a single WiiU. (The ps3 currently streams at 272p )

Secondly you still cannot play your games online( since the 802.11g antennae is using the single 'modem's' bandwidth). If this was possible Nintendo would have been using the 3ds WiiU/Wii configuration( simular to the Ps3/psp configuration). OR the WiiU controller would have been backwards compatible with the Wii.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/310648/news/wii-u-and-3ds-connection-has-limitations-iwata-admits/

since the 3ds use 802.11g connection. it forces the single wiiU modem to stop streaming to internet(wirelessly or wired) and the modem's/transmitter's bandwidth would use its 802.11g antennae to transmit to the 3ds. Also if 802.11g was capable of streaming video quality as WiiU does, then they would have been using it( with a seperate transmitter) and the 3ds would have been able to work no problems.

And finally even if all the above was possible the PS3 doesnt have the processing power  transmit the multiple views at the same game without loss in  graphical quality.

Again

The ps3 cannot stream high resolution content to vita wirelessly,  stream normally to hdtv, and be connected to the internet (in any meaningful way) all at the same time. Not to the slightest

Which means PS3+ vita cannot do What the WiiU can do. This thread is irrelevant

1.  The very point I'm making is that the controller doesn't have to be seen as a complicated device; it's all dependent on software.  Picture games that are completely reliant upon the touch-screen where buttons are rarely, if ever, used.  It can easily function as a tablet would, with full navigation done on the touch-screen alone.  The buttons are there for the other games, just as the nunchuck was for the Wii remote.

2.  Again, it's the addictive software utilizing the new controller that would interest the expanded market.  The price could be as little as $299, which is only $50 more than the Wii at launch.

3.  I agree that DS leftovers aren't enough, but we don't have evidence that this will occur.  And the example you site is a 3DS game.  Remember that the 3DS does nothing new over the DS other than better hardware and the 3D effect.  Not so with Wii U, which offers a new way to interact with a home console.

4.  Now this I agree with; they need better sticks...

5.  No, both Reggie and Iwata have stated it can support more than one touch-screen controller.

6.  Actually I've heard that many online-heavy companies would welcome this freedom.

lol im not the one crying here

For god's sake trim the quote trees people. Mods will start coming in at this point