No. I was talking about success. The PS2 is the most successful mainstream console. The Wii U would look like a success compared to a 3DS TV.

3DS TV would fail because there is no market for micro consoles. It's plain and simple. No one who wants to play those games has any issue buying a handheld for them. The 3 people who won't aren't worth modeling an entire console after, especially if that replaces a real console. The Vita TV was stupid enough as a third pillar. Asking Nintendo to make that instead of a real console? Only you would buy it. No one else would.

A micro console wouldn't be successful because people actively don't want it. No one wants to scale up handheld games on their TV with absolutely nothing added to make a difference. Scaling down console games to a handheld is completely different. You buy a $300-$400 console, and you get $300-$400 console level games. You buy a $200 handheld, and you buy the much more inferior, but ultimately more conveniently portable version with exclusive features that take advantage of that portability. If you can't understand that now, then buckle up, because you'll be forced to when that happens and your microconsole idea, intelligently, does not.

some people have no idea how business works

But things aren't that simple.
There's a reason those type of games disappeared from home consoles: everyone wanted to offer AAA experiences and now no one settles for less.

The market for those type of games might exist on handhelds because people are ok with that; they know that handhelds can't rival home consoles and they know there are technical issues that prevent such type of offering.
You'll see that as mobile devices grow more powerful, that same tendency will show up.

But the difference might be that there are so many users of smartphones and tablets, that there might just be a sustainable market for those kind of games. Just not on home consoles.
People have a clear picture of what mobile gaming is and what home console gaming is.
If Nintendo decided to go that way they wouldn't be able to appeal to anyone in particular - just like Wii U in 2013.

And who would support Nintendo's micro console when android machines from Amazon and Google can't even pull big numbers. And we are talking about big, powerful brands, who are well known in the mobile gaming crowd.

I don't really understand why someone would even want to play a tablet/phone game on their television. What's the point?

The whole appeal of "snack sized" mobile gaming on Android/iOS is just that ... it's quick/easy/cheap bite sized. Trying to blow that up into a big experience on your TV where you sit in front of your 50 inch set and play (not to mention the control issues here) just never struck me as being smart.

So the whole "well Google couldn't do it" ... doesn't necessarily mean anything for Nintendo.

Nintendo already makes "mini-consoles" anyway (see above). How different would a "microconsole" really be, aside from the fact that it would be cheaper and more profitable for Nintendo?

The job listing for Nintendo's next-gen graphics engineer also had this line:

"Low power and SoC design experience would be a plus."

To me that screams Nintendo is looking into or is already well underway with a game machine that has mobile style chips (ala smartphones/tablets) that are extremely power efficient. 

^ To me, the problem with making it a success has got nothing to do with size, but with it's offerings.

The "Google couldn't do it" is another way of saying that not even the Google brand could help overcome that obstacle and making it a desirable product.

Yeah but in Nintendo's scenario, a "microconsole" that shares the same library as the handheld would likely have far more games released at a far steadier clip than Nintendo's past recent consoles because their dev teams could all focus on one platform (basically) rather than being split into two. 

This could also lead to things like more original IPs ... instead having to make two Mario 3D Land/World games for example maybe the team could just make one and then afterwards they're free to maybe make something new for example. That could also be a big boon. 

It doesn't really matter that it didn't work for Amazon/Google ... for Nintendo's situation, it can't really be worse than we're they're at now. 

Worst case scenario IMO is they "only" sell about 20 million microconsoles, but at a higher profit margin than the Wii U with a much lower R&D cost. And a situation where it doesn't really matter for the games either, like for example Mario Kart 8 is stuck on the Wii U's low userbase no matter what, but Mario Kart 9 ... even if the microconsole only sold 20 million ... it would still have another 60-70 million of the portable users to sell to. 

That's a huge game changer for Nintendo too. They can leverage their entire audience in one place now, and all their games have the benefit of being available to both their home and portable fanbase, which means games like DKC: Tropical Freeze, Bayonetta 2, Splatoon, etc. probably all would sell better. 

It's better for Nintendo and in the end it's probably a better experience for Nintendo fans too. More games, cheaper hardware, more "democracy" in how they play. Wanna play a "real" Pokemon game on your 50-inch TV in 1080p HD? You got it. Wanna play the "real" new 3D Zelda on your bus ride to work? You got it. 

Right now if you actually think about, Nintendo's "sales pitch" is actually fairly insane. Basically they are asking for about $500 in hardware costs ($300 for the Wii U and $200 for a 3DS XL) just so the average consumer can play all the Nintendo games. Is it really that shocking that a lot of people are choosing say "no thanks" to this proposition? 

Maybe if there was an option, say a $150 microconsole (maybe even $99 fairly quickly, since Nintendo would use the same chips for the microconsole and handheld the costs would scale down rapidly) ... that gave someone access to ALL Nintendo's software offerings (from Pokemon to 3D Zelda and Virtual Console retro stuff) a lot more people might bite. 

You are assuming everyone wants all Nintendo games.  This is an innacurate assumption.  If there's one take away from Nintendo's sales history, it's that their home console and handheld dmographics do. not. overlap.  The microconsole is a bad idea cause it strips the handheld platform of its advantages and the home console of its advantages.  It's no longer portable and it's no longer even in the same universe as any of its contemporaries in power.  And handheld game design and home console game design do. not. overlap.  That's the biggest lesson to learn from the Vita, which was a blatant "home console on the go" handheld.  Play 3D Land and then play 3D World.  Play Metroid Fusion then play Super Metroid or Metroid Prime.  Even these similar games are adjusted for on the go gaming on one hand and long term home console gaming on the other.  It would be better ot expand their operations while maintaining their high efficiency in order to take better advantage of what they have then venture into the blackhole of the microconsole market hoping that there's cake in the center rather than crushing death.

ALSO, "use mobile parts, bye bye fan?!" are you outta your mind?  Mobile parts still get hot when run at max, the thing would still need a fan or its going to put out a performance as bad or worse than a tablet if it's any kind of serious hardware. 

Thanks for the explanation. I think I have a better understanding now of what a micro-console is.

Mobile parts are expanding rapidly in power though.

Apple's A8 processor is fairly close to the PS3 in raw performance, if you put two A8 processors into a small box and called it a day, you'd likely have a system that's a good deal more powerful than the Wii U which would be small enough to fit into your pocket IMO.

By 2016 Nintendo could have something quite powerful using mobile components if they really wanted to go this route.

Lets not forget the new iPad driven by the A8 processor has to drive a display with a whopping 2480x1536 resolution too.

To be honest too, outside of console warrior nonsense and getting into a pissing match for third parties that will never really back Nintendo above the other two guys ... does Nintendo really need to go the super powerful route?

Unlike the Wii, I'm quite content with Wii U's visuals. Like I don't play Mario Kart 8 or Pikmin 3 or Captain Toad and wonder how much better they'd look on a PS4, because they look pretty darn good as is. Even games that aren't going for a cartoony asthetic like Bayonetta 2 and Xenoblade look terrific too. 

The jump to HD makes all the difference in the world, with the Wii it was jarring to go to the PS3/360 and back to the Wii. But I don't really ever get that sense jumping between the PS4/X1 and Wii U. 

If Nintendo can make their games look great using mobile parts and it means a cheaper console that's easier for them to make money off of ... maybe it isn't as bad of a play as some people are stamping their feet about. Especially one that maybe can amass a large library of killer games quickly in its life cycle thanks to all of Nintendo's teams being able to work on just one platform and some of the portable third party support like Monster Hunter coming over too. The Wii being barely an upgrade over the GameCube and being sold for $150 more with just a controller being the main difference just as many were switching over to HDTVs was a far more of an egregious tech decision yet many Nintendo fans made it through that era. 

Microconsoles are the micropenises of the console world.