Smart devices are firmware centric platforms that their hardware hosts. It's not just about connecting to the internet or services at all. Old flip phones connected to the internet. Some of the first touch screen phones would never be considered smart phones. There's a reason for that. Current consoles are not that. They are very hardware specific devices. I understand that the services are advanced. Absolutely. Netflix, Hulu, a browser, all great. That doesn't make them "smart," though.

"Smart" is just a branding. When I say "Nintendo is making smart consoles," I'm not saying "Nintendo are making more intelligent consoles than the PS4 and XBO," I'm saying that they will be making consoles with that very same massive firmware/OS/UI-first focus that other smart devices have. That's something current consoles do not do, at all.

No, most people don't check Wikipedia when they want to find out if something is smart, I just did that to make sure there wasn't some extra defining feature required to be considered "Smart".

Difference between a TV/phone/watch and their "Smart" counterparts is easily recognized as being able to connect to the internet and has apps, things that consoles already have.

To address it more directly, however, smart consoles are whatever hardware hosts Nintendo's unified platform. What makes it "smart" isn't just that you can play the same game across various hardware skews, but the seamlessness through which everything is done. That's why the platform will be digital only. The entire user experience will be focused on what's already in the in the box, and how those services transfers across multiple devices. I don't know how strict their deal is with amazon, but I wouldn't be suprised to see Nintendo try and partner with GameFly and push their new streaming service as a big NX win, as currently its range is limited. The idea is to make your NX feel as UI advanced and modern as something like an iPhone, which again, consoles haven't even come close to reaching.

You could insert Sony on every Nintendo word and PSVita on NX-Handheld and it's clear that it wouldn't work. Sony (or the Media) even marketed the Vita as Portable PS3. One could say it wasn't too easy to port games over due to too different architectures. 

Let's assume Nintendo goes with AMD's Kaveri/Carrizo microarchitecture, they could make a Handheld version with 2/3GB RAM that runs games like Witcher3 in 720p on a low-medium preset and 1080p High on a 8GB home console.  But the thing is is there really a market for this? Who plays games and then decides to take them with them on a train. This only makes for good promo videos. I know a lot of people who are too embarrased to play 3DS on a train/ in public (stupid I know). 

PLUS, the biggest issue: Do people really believe Nintendo would stop selling 2 different games? The Company that charges you for transfering your Wii roms to a WiiU. There's no way they'd just say "ok instead of selling Zelda on 3DS (45€), and Zelda on WiiU (60€), we'll just have a 70€ hybrid!"

The A9X chip is definitely impressive and it's good to see someone posting something positive about Apple's products on these forums for a change. I'm using my notebook and iPad Air 1 mostly for writing and I'm curious if we'll soon be at a point where I can trade both of those devices in for an iPad Pro / MS Surface like machine.

As for performance: I'd be great if Nintendo went the powerful + cheap route for their consoles and handhelds but I don't see it happening. I checked the generational leaps starting with Gameboy Advance and Gamecube and with the exception of the original Wii, the performance of every Nintendo platform followed Moore's Law. If they continue to do this we'll get something like this:

Handheld: 4x 1GHz CPU + 1GB RAM
Console: 8x 1.8GHz CPU + 8GB RAM (GPU between XB1 and PS4 in power)

I know this is not the most accurate research by a long shot but basically this puts handheld NX at roughly PS Vita level performance (with a 480p screen most likely) and the home console should be equal to PS4 and X1 in power. I think this is a likely scenario, as long as they can easily down- or upgrade games to run on both machines. The handheld will of course need less horsepower to run a game at 480p. But hey, just speculation on my part here.

There were plenty of pre-smartphone phones that connected to the internet and had apps. I should know. I owned one, and it was even touch screen and released after the OG iphone. That's not all it takes to be a smart device.

Wait, u had a touchscreen phone with Internet connectivity and allowed for apps that released post-2007 and u don't consider it a Smartphone? Why exactly? I'm pretty sure if u asked the general consumer if it was a smart or not, they would identify it as a smartphone.

The Vita isn't even on the same planet when it comes to comparability in concepts. It didn't work because they didn't do it well, not because the concept doesn't work. The Vita was not a portable PS3. And even if it was, the NXDS is not a "portable NX." It is the NX, but portable. There's a major difference. One is tied to hardware. The other is tied to a platform. A portable PS3 is just "MvC3 came out on the PS3 and Vita. I'll buy the Vita version for portable play." That's not what the NX is. The NX is "NvC just came out on the eshop. I'll download it so I can play on both. Same save. Same purchase. Same game. I can play against anyone one anything because the platform is the same." You buy a game from the eshop, own it on everything, play it on anything, play it against anyone. Playing NvC on the NXDS against someone on the NX won't be considered cross platform play because they're on the same platform. You're playing the same games.

I think a lot of people care about the portability, especially in Japan, where console gaming is dead and handhelds reign supreme. Home consoles are bigger here, so of course you'll have more anecdotes of people preferring home consoles here. They do. But a lot of people, like me, enjoy and often times prefer the handheld experience. It's more convenient, more portable, more intimate, and again, more convenient.

And absolutely Nintendo will stop selling two different games. I don't even know how that is even a legitimate question. They make more money selling only one. They charge that because their current way of porting games between platforms is so inefficient and espensive that they have to recoup the costs. Nintendo has been incredebly open about how against this they are. Instead of selling one $40 game to one audience and one identical $60 game to a completely different audience, they get to sell the first $40 to both audiences and then make a completely original $60 game to sell to that same combined audience. They literally sell two times as many games that each sell twice as many copies. If the Wii U and 3DS were like this, do you even realize how many more VC games we'd have because Nintendo wouldn't need you waste time, effort, and money porting SMB3 twice after they already ported it to the Wii? But somehow you think Nintendo is happy doing this?

I don't know how to explain it, but if I showed you a picture, you'd understand lol. Trust me. Remember that their was no Android back then. (or if there was, this phone sure as hell wasn't one) It was funtionally like old flip phones with a few apps, a DS quality touch screen, and a really low end internet browser. Only it wasn't a flip phone.

EDIT: This wasn't it, and it actually looks a bit more modern than what I had, but you should get the gist.

I would not consider this a smart phone, and I don't think most people would.

I think that, while having internet and a market place are imperitive to being considered a smart device, that is absolutely not what defines them as being smart devices. I'd take it a step further and say that being digital only is and being able to connect to some kind of data plan if the device is mobile are imperitive to being considered a smart device, but again, that's not at all what defines it. If a device exists with all that, it can still very obviously not be a smart device. It's the UI, OS, firmware, and very importantly the absolute segregation from the hardware. With a smart device, the hardware is merely a vessel for the firmware you buy it for.

I agree, that's not a smart device in any sense of the word. That's a flip phone that replaced the buttons with a touch screen. A touch screen does not make a smart device.