Controversial opinion here:

The should have stuck with the Wiimote and released a controllerless (yes absolutely no controller) for $200 alongside one with a Wiimote+nunchuck for £250. At $200 they would have flown off the shelves.

Why no controller? because the world is swimming in unused Wiimotes. I would love a $200 Wiiu that I could just use the Wiimote from my old Wii on. Heck someone in my flat has 3 sets of old WM + NCs going about.

It's all about lowering the cost of entry.

mmmm i dont think that is very nintendo-ish.... more like a play station-ish

User Requested removal

Honestly, the gamepad was a great addition to me.  I can see how many people wont see the value in it, thinking it's a "gimmick" and "unnecessary" for "true gamers."  Honestly, the same could be said about the "innovations" in the PS4 and XB1's controllers as well.  A lot of the "selling points" you see with both consoles (as consoles themselves, not the games) are pretty much the same.  Not that there's a problem with that, but the Wii U without the gamepad and just a regular controller would be vastly inferior to the PS4 and XB1, regardless of having more power without one.  What does power of a console matter if a PC will always be better?  There's clearly some things the consoles offer that the PC can't or wont. 

XB1 and PS4 are touting power more than the Wii U does (since the Wii U barely does at all), and if the Wii U were to try to do that, it would fail unless they tried to go on par with the power of the other consoles.  Gamecube is a really good example of that going horribly wrong.  Japan and Europe did not buy the console.

Wii U also definitely has a much broader appeal to families than the other consoles do, offering the off-screen play.  There are also plenty of ideas that can be implemented on the gamepad that haven't yet (some of which we have seen at e3).  
Also, the way the gamepad is designed, core gamers do not have to be hindered as they were with the Wii (since the controller was simplified to the point where all games had to conform to its controls otherwise good sales couldn't be guaranteed).  
In the end, I think the Wii U is in a good place right now and a price cut may help the consumers, but currently it would be pretty bad for Nintendo financially. 

#1 horrible delivery (if you were going to do this, at least put in a source)
#2 PR statement is PR
#3 He didn't say that's how much more it made the Wii U cost, just said that the other consoles would have cost $100 more if it did.  He could also be making a statement at how "fair" the Wii U pricing is, that it (perhaps) did NOT increase $100 in price because of the gamepad.  
#4 That quote still doesn't address the point I was trying to make in the later half of my paragraph. 

I remember before the release of the Wii U someone saying the Gamepad was about $100 by itself. Somewhat makes sense given even though it isn't as advance as most $100 tablets, it is made of fine quality, has its own speaker, camera and touch screens of that size aren't cheap, although it is probably closer to $75 mainly because I hear it was built mainly to stream info rather then keep it.

But regardless of price, it comes down to Nintendo trying to have it both ways with the Wii remotes and the Gamepad at the same time without proving the Gamepad was good for something other then off TV gameplay that so many people are thinking that it is the major deterrent of the Wii U selling better.