That Nintendo sucks because they are holding the Wii u version for the sake of the Switch one.

That Nintendo sucks is not a fact, it's your opinion. It's a subjective truth but not a objective one. "Nintendo sucks" is the truth for you because you are a die hard Zelda fan and you got angry when the game got delayed more than one time. But at the same time, Nintendo may not suck for me or somebody else. You are not stating the "truth" (as the word is defined) instead you are stating your opinion about a company that delayed a game that belongs in your favorite franchise.

Any company that holds a version of a game for the sake of another one sucks. There's nothing to defend a move like that unless you are an apologist.

One can not be apologist when it comes to the statement that "Nintendo sucks", because that's not a fact and therefor, no need to defend Nintendo from it. Apologist is a term used for the faithful of Christianity, for example when they defend certain pseudo-facts as the world is about 5000 years old or that we humans are a special species not relative to the rest of the world (for example apes and so forth). These are apologist because they defend the Bible from scientific facts that the world is more than 5000 years old and that we indeed are relatives to apes and rest of the world. "Nintendo sucks" is not a fact.

Or because they defend a company with shitty anticonsumer practices like in the Zelda case. Those are also apologists that are hurting the future.