Running AAA third party games in 720p on a tablet would/should be possible by now.

The iPad Pro from 2015 was about 35-40% of the power of an xbox one (according to graphics benchmarks like GFXbench).

graphical performance mostly doubles every 1-2 years (more effiecient architecture, more transistors on the chip, lower NM and so on).

So by now it should be possible to make a tablet ~70% of the power of an xbox one (especially if you add active cooling).

So all 900p games on xbox one should be able to run on 720p on such a tablet.

Im curios of powerfull apples new ipad pro with the a10xFusion chip will be (release is spring 2017) to see if im right.

His definition for a home console was correct because it was interpretive. Doing that for handhelds has to take into account its pocketable form factor and is designed specifically and exclusively to be played in your hands. Even if you take into account extremes like the 3DS XL or the 2DS, it's just an iterative spin off of the OG 3DS, which was designed to be pocketable. 

The Switch is not that. It was designed from the onset to not have the form factor or the industrial design of a handheld or a home console, because it's neither. The three use cases are docked, kick-stood, and being held. There's not a doubt in my mind that the design philosophy of the Switch revolves around the middle use case, because that's the only one that hasn't existed before. That's what the Switch is. That's its intended use case.

Everything else revolves around the fact that it's not a situation-agnostic use case. It can't be the only use-case because that would be inconvenient in too many scenarios. You have the dock for the first use case and the attached controllers for the third, but the second is what the Switch was designed to be used for. Not to be a handheld. Not to be a home console. Not to be both put together. It's something else.

Did you get that from the prominent featuring of 3rd party multiplats in the announcement trailer?

The IPad Pro is also much larger than the Switch, which accommodates a larger battery, and is WAY more expensive than any console at $600. and even that thing is still way less powerful than an Xbox One.

So unless you can point me to an upcoming Switch-sized portable device tha is at least 70% the power of an Xbox One, my point still stands. As far as I know, the closest thing to the Switch is the upcoming Smach Z, which is totally capable of running current gen games on lower settings, but still doesn't even come close to that power benchmark. And it's STILL pretty damn expensive.

The iPad Pro is also much thinner than the Switch.
Manufacturers can take advantage of Z volume just as much as Height and Width of a device... As for costs. You know Apple loves it's profit margins right? Nintendo gets the majority of it's profit back from the games. It's not an Apples to Apples comparison. (Pun intended.)

Price is mostly eaten up by things like the screen and battery, SoC's are relatively cheap.

As for ARM chips better than the Xbox One? None exist just yet, but one should land Next year from nVidia which is Volta powered.
ARM's BiFrost, PowerVR 7XT Plus, Adreno 540 can all soundly beat the Switch without much issue and get "Close enough" to the Xbox One.

Adreno 530 and 4th Gen Midgard can give the underclocked Switch a sound beating as well, the important point is "Good enough" in terms of performance, right now the Switch doesn't fall into that category, Nintendo is using a seriously decent mobile GPU and then castrated it, likely just to lower costs.

People would have been happy if the Switch got current gen games at 720P and slightly lowered settings verses the Current generation consoles, but that chance has been soundly thrown out the window and people aren't pleased. And they shouldn't be pleased.

I think people just need to understand that you don't buy consoles for power but for the exclusives at the end of the day. I'm actually impressed by the fact that Nintendo is going for this route, just because it's super ballzy.

The iPad Pro is also much thinner than the Switch.
Manufacturers can take advantage of Z volume just as much as Height and Width of a device... As for costs. You know Apple loves it's profit margins right? Nintendo gets the majority of it's profit back from the games. It's not an Apples to Apples comparison. (Pun intended.)

Price is mostly eaten up by things like the screen and battery, SoC's are relatively cheap.

As for ARM chips better than the Xbox One? None exist just yet, but one should land Next year from nVidia which is Volta powered.
ARM's BiFrost, PowerVR 7XT Plus, Adreno 540 can all soundly beat the Switch without much issue and get "Close enough" to the Xbox One.

Adreno 530 and 4th Gen Midgard can give the underclocked Switch a sound beating as well, the important point is "Good enough" in terms of performance, right now the Switch doesn't fall into that category, Nintendo is using a seriously decent mobile GPU and then castrated it, likely just to lower costs.

People would have been happy if the Switch got current gen games at 720P and slightly lowered settings verses the Current generation consoles, but that chance has been soundly thrown out the window and people aren't pleased. And they shouldn't be pleased.

You can have both power and exclusives. They aren't mutually exclusive.

The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were "high-end" relative to the PC.
The Playstation 4 and Xbox One are mid-range relative to the PC.
The Switch will likely get beaten by Integrated Graphics, thus lower than low-end relative to the PC.