Should have been SuperWii, a natural evolution from the Wii.

You are very biased in your answer to make irrevelant a lot of things. And it's easy for you, because I didn't write a mandatory list, it's just a list of points that I think make a product new for customers, and Nintendo failed them all. No company can afford that.

Apple doesn't prove a new design is irrevelant, they prove they can afford to keep the same design because they do better in other area (like screen definition, not just better than previous model, but better than competition), have a fanboy (happy customers) base big enough, a design already among the best, and massive ads and buzz.

Being more powerful than a very outdated model is not enough. Powerful means more powerful or at the same power range than other products. Again, it's not mandatory, and there are lot of examples of products selling with an agressive pricing, appealing new features (like the Wii). The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years.

I do think if the client is interested, the naming doesn't really matters. Iphone S, xperia Z/T/T2/whatever, Geforce 4200 GTX, Intel Xeon E5-2650, DS instead of GB 2 or 3, Bravia (EX645, etc)... and XBox One (wtf, one) proves it. And you can buzz without a good naming/title, youtube is proving that everyday, twits doesn't even have titles. I do think that if the client have the slightest interest in the product, especially granted they are 120 millions, there is so many hardcore fans and news about a new product, Wii U, with a U added to Wii, is enough to be understandable and generate buzz.

The client understand if he is motivated, if moving a wiimote seems fun, it's easy to market, the client talk about it, the client buy it, the client shows it, and it become a 120 million user market. If the Wii U sells 4 or 5 time less than the Wii, it's a fundamental problem. And I will tell you my opinion : for now, a new controller is not a new and hot thing, and is not so much a selling factor (Kinect proves it, Sony not marketing too much about camera and all proves it), using a sort of toy version of a tablet to play on the TV doesn't seem fun, and that's why it's hard to market as fun. A lot of the Wii customers just forgot about their Wii they use once in a while with friends, and don't see a point in a new version, ask one of your casual friend if he want a new Wii.

Low end PC specs make something powerful? :p Are the PS4 and X1 machines of god like strength to you? They reach aaaaaall the way up to a mid range PC :p

Well it don't need a fax machine or to run Microsoft Excel.  For a home console it's powerful enough.  Sony and a few developers say the Wii U is a little bit more powerful then the X360 you believe.  The Wii U has eDRAM which is very fast, it's a beast.

Sony have never said the WiiU is only little more powerful than the 360 lol... The 360 also has eDRAM, just less of it. eDRAM is intended to make up for the WiiU's lack of standard RAM, it doesn't make the GPU or CPU any faster.

The WiiU is certainly more powerful than the 360/PS3, but it's still not powerful. As I've said before, even the PS4's power is a little disappointing and that's a console reported to be 10 times stronger than the PS3 (as said by the developer of Yakuza). I suppose you could say the designers of the PS4 were successful in that 10 PS3's was their aim for the hardware, but considering how far PC's have come it's still somewhat lackluster.

Still, what else do people except from consoles; they're cheap.

Funny thing but yes, I think something like "Nintendo Ultra" would be better.

There was a time when "play Nintendo" was as ubiquitous for video games as "Google it" for search.

Yeah, I was going to say it may be lackluster to higher end PCs but for $400 and fairly low wattage it is good and they packed 8GB GDDR5 at a time when high end GPUs typically had 3GB.

I don't know what to say.  If I was to say the Wii U eDRAM is better then the PS4 GDDR5, someone will ask me to prove it and I can't.  If I was to say the Wii U is a lot more powerful then it's givin credit for, you more then likely won't believe me cause what a few developers said right (there developers and I'm not).  If I said "Retro Studios" called the Wii U a powerhouse, someone will say that's a Nintendo 2nd party studio.  At this point I'm talking to a wall.

You mean this guy?

eDRAM is faster than GDDR5, but the thing is the WiiU has 34MB of eDRAM while the PS4 has 8192MB of GDDR5 RAM. If the WiiU also had 8GB of DDR3 RAM like the X1 then maybe you'd have an argument, but it doesn't, it has 2GB (with only 1GB of that used for games) :/

The problem is you don't know all your facts. A while ago you said the PS4 wasn't much stronger than a PS3, yet the designers of its hardware and a developer who has used it said it's 10 times stronger. If you don't even know the strength of the competition your comparing it too, nor understand the difference between basics like 34MB of eDRAM vs 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I'm sure to developers that previously worked on the Wii the WiIU is a powerhouse, but when compared to its competition the WiiU is just as under powered compared to the PS4/X1 as the PS4/X1 are to a high end PC. That really shouldn't surprise anyone. The console itself costs half as much to manufacture as a PS4 and uses considerably less energy. Of course it's going to be weaker.

At the end of the day the WiIU is a perfectly capable machine. That's all that should matter.