I'd think that but then I keep on thinking about Nintendo worrying about the competition stealing their revolutionary idea -- then I remember that a lot of this stuff Eurogamer is presenting has already been done before and there's nothing revolutionary about it.  Plus, a lot of these rumors from Eurogamer is old stuff I remember people speculating about months (if not years) ago that seem to be sewn together to create something that they're presenting as factual.

Different is good when you have a killer gimmick. If you are different just because you want to be different, it is not good.

It's not like Nintendo will ever capture the market that Sony already owns. They pretty much have no other choice to go a completely different route.

The biggest issue currently with Nintendo is being spread thin between two platforms, three if Kimishima's words are to be believed so once there's only one platform for Nintendo to develop for, droughts should be a thing of the past. Also, swaying devs to develop for their platform should get easier.

So in other words, different is good except when it isn't good?

Maybe if Sony screws up again.

How?

The only one time Sony screwed up they ended up slightly behind in hardware, massively in front with software and still had hardcores on lock while Nintendo had none. Unless "screwing up" means closing down Sony altogether and ending Playstation I don't see how Nintendo could ever capture that market.

Isn't it sad when your own success is so heavily reliant on other companies screwing up?

How? I don't know. These things can be hard to foresee at times: back in the PS2 days, people might have felt there was no way Sony could lose and then PS3 was released and it cost Sony billions of dollars.

Not sad at all. PS4's success is in part because Microsoft and Nintendo have screwed up.

The concept of separate GPUs or even CPUs, each for different mode: mobile/console, seems insanely wasteful.
It means a large chunk of hardware budget is power that is not being used in any given mode.
Theoretically one could access both, but I'd guess performance will be worse vs. unified solution, and development will be much more difficult.
The obvious solution is simply to have unified, advanced GPU/CPU which can down-clock and de-activate cores that aren't needed,
e.g. in mobile mode which will target a lower resolution frame buffer, while console mode will output 1080p with fully activated GPU/CPU.
That just results in two quality settings to tweak, but using same architecture, vs. effectively distinct architectures rather hard to develop for.

When I read the EG story, I read them speculating that Nintendo will use Tegra 2, and have a product quite distinct from Tegra 1/ Shield.
Not sure why that possibility is discounted completely in this discussion.   

It's no more wasteful than having a console sitting at home that you can't play when you're out of the house, actually being able to use your console's tech when you're out of the house is actually reducing the waste of having said console, because you can play games on it now, anywhere you have access to an internet connection.

The hardware would always be accessible provided you have an internet connection and the game you're playing requires it, not all games do, but why limit your platform's capabilities when the tech to include it is actually really cheap now?

The tech to match a modern console, but in a handheld/tablet form factor doesn't exist yet, but the tech to offload non-latency sensitive tasks to an external processing unit does, it's called the internet.

BTW if you're deactivating parts of the CPU and GPU in the tablet because you can't power it for long on the move then you're wasting it more than if you were offloading tasks to a console unit at home through the internet. Same deal for reducing clockspeeds, you're wasting potential compute time, may as well just put the processing performance offsite, where it's available when needed to share workloads with the tablet device.