Whoops I should have waited a moment to reply to ur last post lol but I dont know a whole lot about specs so I cant really answer ur question. I just assume since Vita is currently $199 (I believe at a profit) that a moderate power boost could be that price in a few years.

It seems 10 watts would be way too much for a portable device. Vita draws 2.8 max apparently.

Word ... Do not take lessons from Nvidia on making mobile SoCs. LOL 

I get some people's concern with the "well what happens if the singular, unified platform fails?" notion, but I'd imagine that Nintendo putting all of its eggs in one basket would be akin to Hernan Cortes landing in Mid-America and scuttling his own ships. In other words, Nintendo would go at it harder than ever before, because it's truly do or die time at that point. The research, planning, development and marketing would have to all be taken to another level, because there would be no room for failure, no margin for error like there is with two seperate platforms. And with that in mind, I'd imagine Nintendo would be cranking out games, forming partnerships and making shit happen like nobody's business.

All signs in the heavens and the earth pointing towards the hybrid. Just the design of the Wii U suggests that Nintendo could be on to something (low power consumption, two screens/touch screen, embedded motion sensor and camera into controller etc.). And then Nintendo accounts unifications happened and recently both handheld and home console hardware divisions working together.

My analysis on the concept...

Positives? Hmmm, most of this screams "negative" to me regarding just one device. IT could benefit those who don't want both a console and a handheld from Nintendo, one device, one focus, throw all of Nintendo's developers to that one device, sounds like a simple plan, but that's not what they're gonna do. They can't support two devices with DIFFERENT architectures, they will do better if their handheld and console both had the same architecture. What do you mean by "one platform"? They're going to unite both handheld and console into one platform development environment, but they will still be separate entities. In fact, Iwata clearly talked of perhaps even "increasing form factors", which is contradictory of your idea of only one device:

Iwata uses the phrase "form factors" to describe the devices, currently they have two, Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, which both have different architectures, hence different platforms. Having more would definitely kill them on the software front, and two isn't doing them any good without a Wii Sports / DS-like phenomenon, or while they have issues selling to the public. The fact that Iwata is strongly hinting at having MORE form factors (MORE devices) leads one to believe that they're not going for one device this time. How many devices will they have? Who knows. They're integrating platforms, and they have brought together their handheld and console development divisions. But, that doesn't mean it will mean "one" device, this is what Iwata means:

Does this mean there will cease to be 2 Zeldas, 2 Metroids (lol), 2 Kirby's? No, there will likely still be 2 Mario's, 2 Mario Karts, 2 3D Zeldas, 2 this and 2 that plus whatever new stuff they come up with. Let's face it, these games still sell, a lot (with respect to the hardware sales). Mario Kart Wii sold 30+ million, Mario Kart DS sold 22+ million, Mario Kart 7 is nearing 10 million, and Mario Kart 8 is already over 2 million, they aren't going to just toss these essentially "free" sales aside, they'll probably just sell the next one three years later like they have been doing. (Mario Kart: 2005 DS, 2008 Wii, 2011 3DS, 2014 Wii U.....2017 4DS). With the combined architecture, they can re-use assets for either the next game of that series, or as a baseline for a different game of a different series. Either way, development for titles will be much easier with the transfer of assets between handheld(s) and console(s). The best part? They're aiming to do this, regardless of what the specs are, so "specs-wise" they'll probably still be in different leagues in terms of raw power, the differences will likely resemble the difference in power between 3DS and Wii U, but probably much closer for compatibility reasons. 

With a change in their hardware/software strategy, you also have to consider the company as a whole, the entire business. You're cutting their hardware revenue streams, how will they compensate for this loss of revenue? Will they REALLY increase software sales enough to compensate for the loss of consoles? Let's not imagine another DS or Wii situation, that's not happening for the next generation, which is the only way for them to have just one device, and be more successful than either now, or during the 6th generation. We love chartz, so here's one I made. Let's have several takes of each generation starting from the Gamecube (all Nintendo's figures from their fiscal-year-end reports)

Historically, there are times where the console would be EXTREMELY close to the revenue from handhelds, despite selling MUCH less units. 2003 is quite interesting, they had Gameboy Advance and the SP, selling a total of 17.5 million hardware units, earning them revenue of 132 Billion Yen. Gamecube during that same time period, sold 5.02 million hardware units, and that brought them revenue of 101 Billion Yen. Their Handheld division sold almost 3.5 more hardware units than the console division, yet it only brought them 24% more revenue compared to the console division.  If they play their cards right, Nintendo can launch their next home console ready with streams of consistant releases, and reach higher numbers than that of the Gamecube, that is, if it doesn't launch with the issues that plagued the GC. And if their next handheld sells similarly to 3DS (without the screw ups of the first 5 months, so probably better), the numbers between Console and Handheld hardware revenue could in fact be very close. Hardware revenue for console is not something you'd just remove without big losses. Don't count on QoL to compensate, that has yet to be put to the test and will be a separate entity within Nintendo, aside from their video game business.

I've noticed that you also referred to Nintendo's Hardware division as "borderline irrelevant" now. Well, 153 billion yen is NOT an irrelevent value (not including accessories, 3rd party royalties, etc). 3.94 Million Home Console Hardware has been sold in for the fiscal year ending March 2014 (2.7 Million Wii U, and 1.2 Million Wii), that has brought 153 billion yen of revenue. During the same time period, 12.37 million Handheld Hardware has sold in for this fiscal year (0.12 Million DS, 12.3 Million 3DS) bringing Nintendo 368 Billion Yen (recall that they had big releases like Pokemon, which probably has a pretty big portion of the total Handheld Software revenue). Handheld hardware has sold 3.13 times more units than Home Console hardware, yet that brought 2.4 times more revenue than the Home Console business (recall that Wii is dying, and Wii U is rather expensive). In other words, they receive more revenue per home console sale than they do per Handheld sale. If Wii U were doing better than Gamecube (and if it weren't sold for a loss), those revenue numbers would be much closer to eachother, and are definitely not worth just dismissing. 

As for the power of the console, have they ever (aside from Gamecube to Wii) NOT had a somewhat large leap in graphics technology for the successor of their consoles? Recall some reactions Nintendo's own developers had when they first developed for Wii U, they liked the increased power compared to Wii. Miyamoto in particular noted the see-through pipes in 3D World looking better at higher resolutions than if they were to do it with Wii. He also comments on "technological advances" in terms of specs right before Wii U released, and that they don't completely ignore that. In other words, they're not going to just sit still at Wii U-level specs. I think we can stay assured that there will be a minimum of 2 devices for the 9th Generation from Nintendo, and they'll probably be supported to their own accords. They may share similar games, but in order to keep each a separate entity, they'll need to be experiences you can't get on the other device, otherwise what would be the incentive to buy the other device after you have one with similar content?

Yup.

There will definitely be multiple devices from Nintendo next gen.  I'm actually thinking home console, handheld and perhaps a handheld-based phone and/or tablet.

What will very likely see is a unified OS environment and old games very likely being available on both.  For example, the 4DS will most likely launch with a full e-shop on tap and I think there's a good chance it will play some or all Wii U games.  The 4DS library will then be available for Wii U2 in some capacity and so on.  It was a key part of having a touchscreen available on Wii U, I think.

There is no question in my mind that the Wii U2 will be much more powerful than Wii U.  I think we'll see todays high-end PC graphics in the very least in place when the system launches in 2018 or so.  I think we will also likely see an environment where the system supports multiple Gamepad-like devices and or 4DS's for imput, and some other innovations like the recent 3D tech patent.  I think a subscription to offset costs will also be implemented before Wii U is done, allowing access to Nintendo's back catelogue, and preparing us for a more expensive Nintendo home console who's costs are hidden in said subscription.

No way that Nintendo are going for a one system approach. Not only has Iwata dismissed that idea, but having just one system will automatically alienate Nintendo consumers who are only interested in playing with a home console (a real home console).

What i see happening is Nintendo making 2 systems that have basically the same OS and architecture. They will be like brothers - as Iwata already mentioned.
And the reason is simple: if you can develop 1 game that plays on 2 systems, you not only allocate less human resources to a project, you also spend less money and even lower the risk of financial failure for the project as well as increasing the financial revenue of the same project, seeing as now you are selling the game to two audiences at the same time.

With the amount of games Nintendo makes, separately, for 3DS and Wii U, if that production became streamlined, there just wouldn`t be any game droughts ever again.
Even with the increase of human resources for each project, Nintendo would have enough staff to develop those games and even try out some new and old franchises.

This strategy could end up reviving Nintendo`s presence in the home console market in Japan, just by allowing gamers to start their game on a handheld and then allowing them to keep playing it on a home console. Or vice-versa.

Another benefit would be that, seeing as the game can be made for two consoles who can play the same game, you would increase the number of potential gamers, thus lowering the risk of failure and increasing the chances of success for the game.
This would be a great way to attract 3rd party companies who are afraid to fail on Nintendo systems.

Also, if the new handheld shares the same tech as the new home console`s gamepad (buttons, etc.), it would give Nintendo the option to sell just the home console to those who at first only bought a HH and want a cheap HC and even sell a bundle with the HH and just the HC for the best deal!

If 2 different people, with different PCs, can play the same game, why can`t Nintendo develop their new systems the same way?

Iwata has not dismissed anything. The audience for people who want a home TV console just for Nintendo games is becoming incredibly small too, yet you guys think Nintendo is going to make even more powerful console (with higher end graphics that means more expensive games) for a userbase of maybe 10-15 million?

The writing is on the wall dude, people who want a Nintendo console with PS4+ level graphics aren't getting what they want any time soon. 

Take a game like Splatoon ... it's probably going to not sell anywhere near as much as it deserves because it's stuck on the lowly Wii U userbase ... if it had a userbase the size of the 3DS at least to sell to, it would have a far better chance of becoming a break out hit. 

This is Miyamoto's most recent quote on this btw:

Miyamoto: [...] but if you have a more unified development environment and you're able to make one game that runs on both systems instead of having to make a game for each system, that's an area of opportunity for us. 

I don't see Nintendo making games that look wildly different and perform very different on different platforms if they go this route. It would break one of the key assets such a platform would have ... which is being able to play the same game on the go and then continue playing at home at the end of the day, but that doesn't really hold if the portable version looks like something 1-2 generations removed from the console version. 

I think more likely we are looking more at something like the iPad-iPhone model where you can get the same games and apps for both systems and generally they're similar in performance except maybe the iPad version runs at a higher resolution or something. 

SNES and N64 were sold at a moderate/thin profit margin (hence the razor blade analogy that's been used for decades). Both had large price cuts within the first 6-8 months on market too. The SNES price cut coming so quick actually caught Sega really off guard. 

I remember that pretty well because my dad was really pissed off that the Super NES had come out and we were bugging him about getting one when we had just gotten the NES a few years prior. He said he'd buy one when they cut the price and they cut it like 2 months later, lol, so it was like my gaming prayers had been answered. That's how I got my SNES, just in time for Street Fighter II. 

The N64 chip was actually fairly cutting edge too (the SNES was a good deal better than the Genny/TG16 too). When Tom Kalinske at Sega was demoed it (SGI went to Sega before Nintendo), he flipped out over it but Sega of Japan was too stubborn/stupid to adopt it, it just happened to be fairly cheap too. Yamauchi then I believe personally inked the deal with SGI himself a few months later. I remember that too (the Project: Reality press release in EGM).