I just can't understand why it's only Nintendo the one mentioned in these type of articles.
Why not mention Sony due to their financial situation? Why not ask EA, Activision and Ubisoft to release their top games (same versions as the home console ones) on mobile?
In every case, tons of money to be made. And 3rd parties have no problems with HW, because they only make software.

Although he is right, there's Money to be made in the mobile market, just not on the expense of the home console market.
Nintendo should expand their business, not exchange markets.

I still see a possibility of Nintendo coming up with a 3rd pillar: a tablet that allows to play all mobile games + VC games exclusive to the tablet + exclusive games like a Super Mario Bros 4 (NES style) exclusive to the tablet but also on the Nintendo consoles.

I think they themselves own the majority of the series.

Sure, it just depends on how much they gain from controlling the ecosystem.  At this time, being platform holders is not necessarily working for Nintendo.

I know it won't be popular here, but my opinion is Nintendo could do better if they sowed a few of their IPs on 3rd party consoles and mobile this generation.

In terms of mobile, the userbases are over 1 Billion and willo be 2 Billion active users before long.  Something like free-to-play pokemon with in game purchase for additional Pokemon could make a lot of money, and they can advertize their 3DS & Wii U and upcoming games through that.

On console, Wii U has a 24.7% market share after 1 year of competitors; by next year it might be a 15% share.  Nintendo is the best game bublisher, their games are consistently great, and the only thing limiting their sales this generation is userbase.  Being an exclusive platform holder in Gen 8 is not necessarily the best strategy, if they're struggling (which they are) to sell the Wii U more competitively.

I SERIOUSLY thought this was a troll article of some kind. I went over to check the actual page to see if the OP messed around with some of the things said in the article. But to my utter disbelief this is exactly what the author said.

My mind is simply blown by what I just read. This person actually wants Nintendo to develop their games on mobile so that they can shove micro transactions up out backsides. You know what, this has to be a troll. I just don't believe it.

Sounds like a biased article written by someone who is mad that Pokemon is still successful after all these years

The Pokemon Company was established in early 2000 to handle the licensing ventures of the Pokemon brand (animation, trading card, apparel, etc.).

Three companies essentially formed this entity: Creatures, GameFreak and Nintendo - each owning a specific percentage (33, 33 and 32 percent respectively).

Nintendo hold the trademarks & copyrights related to the brand, and also the publishing duties.

Nevertheless, The Pokemon Company acts as a seperate entity from Nintendo. Their moto: to produce Pokemon and extend its reach; hence, their ability to publish on IOS.

GameFreak is independent. Creatures on the other hand, is the successor of Ape Inc. (owned by Nintendo), Mother series developpers.

Much like Hal Laboratory & Intelligent Systems, Creatures had capital injection from Nintendo.  In essence, Creatures is a seperate entity from Nintendo, but has ties to them. They have an ownership in Creatures; however, the percentage is small orelse it would be mentioned in Nintendo's IR reports.

Why would I ever do that? I've made hundreads of threads and I've never done that or been accused of doing that before...

Wow..this article is...reaaally bad...

No I'm not blaming you. The article itself was just so mind bendingly unbelievable that it was the only conclusion I could reach to justify the situation in my own head. I still can't believe what I read...

Oh right, haha, yeah that's why I posted it. Its not an opinion piece, its an actual news article which I just couldn't believe.