why is this question only directed at Nintendo? Doesn't it apply to all of then?

Hold up, you think I'm showing a lack of business understanding, when in reality, you think It's FUD because, and let's be frank here, you really don't want it to happen. You're just eating up marketing nothing-speak like "intended synergy" and diving headfirst into the kiddie pool. Is there still more money to be made from an ecosystem where Nitnendo is in full control vs investing in ecosystems that other companies have created? Says who? Sure it was true in 1997, but does that remain true in 2017?  It's only "obvious" to you because you can't imagine a world where Nintendo makes its own hardware. I can remember people making similar comments about Sega about the time the Dreamcast came out. You'd figure they'd have no trouble getting the investment dollars to keep creating their own ecosystems if theres"obviously a lot more money to be made from an ecosystem where Sega is in full control". Yet, here we are still waiting on that dreamcast 2, with Sega outsourcing its IP to third party vendors to make crappy Sega versions of NES Classic Minis. How the mighty have fallen.

Nintendo HAS shifted priorities to mobile games by the mere fact that they're now making mobile games, and last I checked, Nintendo doesn't make a smartphone. It's almost as if they're investing money into an ecosystem where Nintendo is not in full control. It remains to be seen how much of a shift has occurred or will continue to occur, but let's be clear - the times are changing. You can keep up the pearl clutching all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality the only thing you really have to support what your saying is wishful thinking.

We get it, you don't want it to happen so you think anyone that believes it can happen is an idiot. That doesn't make what you think any truer.

This is totally valid, but the reality is that they are changing. They have been diverifying their investments a lot in the past few years. I think the writing has been on the wall for a long time, and the success of the Wii and DS might have stayed a change that has been brewing for quite some time now.

And the proof is kinda in the pudding. Pokemon, for example, has built greater momentum for Sun and Moon partly due to the phenomenon that was (and in a way still is) Pokemon Go. Sure, people will say S&M selling 14 million is within the baseline for most of the mainline games of the past. But to do that within 2 months? That's beyond anything Game Freak or Nintendo might've imagined (plus being the highest preordered Nintendo game ever). Some might excuse S&M because its a great game. But all of the mainline games (and remakes) were well received so that point is out. Plus, we also had reports of 3DS sales and previous Pokemon games (including Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow on VC) gain new life due to Go's success. 

So imagine Nintendo's plan to expand exposure of their properties comes to full fruition. Theme parks, movies,TV shows, etc. to go along with mobile, amiibo, and other licensed merchandise.

Yes, how much product a company sells usually matters to them a great deal. You know....success and all that
And as a consumer, it doesn't hurt if the console you're buying is very successful. It usually leads to longer support.

... you know those investor briefings are public record, right?

"Given that the company is not currently running at a profit, I find it unpersuasive to define our targeted business size by, for example, giving a concrete figure for the operating profit, so I will not give a number to what I perceive to be the right business size for Nintendo. Our software business alone could achieve that business size in, say, one or two years if we are fortunate enough to have some hit titles. However, it has been 30 years since Nintendo started its business of dedicated video game systems, and if I want to maintain that size for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, leading a software-only business would only put us at a big disadvantage, which is another reason why we insist on our integrated hardware-software model. On the other hand, the integrated hardware-software model has a significant handicap today, as the traditional way of explicitly telling consumers the investment they need to put in to buy hardware and software now comes across as being relatively more expensive due to changes in our environment. Although people may actually be spending more money (to play games on other devices not dedicated to video games), it is less visible, so the hurdle we have to clear in order to encourage them to purchase dedicated game systems has comparatively become higher. As with games that are free-to-play, or “free-to-start” as we like to call it, there is a tendency within the entertainment industry to make gaming as easy as possible to start playing. Because our hardware and software are integrated, we first need consumers to purchase our hardware to get our business off the ground, a challenge I outlined when I talked about changing the way we sell our products. Our mid-term goal would be to give an answer to this question in a way that had never been seen before."

Iwata, 2014, during a Corporate Policy briefing. Please note, this was before Nintendo decided to invest in mobile games.

What part about that tells you that Nintendo is treating mobile as a marketing tool? It appears to me they're treating mobile as one of  their fiercest competitors. It appears to me that while Iwata firmly believed in a "hardware-software model",  Iwata recognized that making hardware in 2014 left Nintendo at a handicap (his words), and acknowledged advantages to going "software-only" as he liked to put it, but strongly felt that maintaining a "hardware-software model" was the best way maximize profit for the future. But see that's the key there - maximizing profit. The reason Nintendo continues to make both hardware and software is because they have their investor's confidence that this is the best opportunity to maxmimize profits. That's it. But whats to say that hasn't changed in the last 3 years considering Nintendo has funded multiple mobile projects since that time? What's to say that won't change further in the next 3? Going "software-only" is something Nintendo has been considering for some time now, they just don't believe it'll be the most profitable course of action right now.

Furthermore, my comparisons to Sega are not asinine. Again, why couldn't Sega continue to secure investment if making their own hardware was obviously the most profitable endeavour? In fact why would they even need an investment if making their own hardware was obviously the most profitable endeavour?  Why was their first move to remain a software development company, and not a hardware development company when cuts had to be made? Sure Sega's IP were never as strong as Nintendo's but at the time it was a lot stronger than it is now (and I'd argue that Nintendo's IPs were stronger then than they are now). Sega was also a strong and proud Japanese company, that at that point, had been making game machines well before Nintendo ventured into it. So why again is it so ridiculous to you to considering that Nintendo might stop making hardware within the next decade?

Also, where have I ever said that I hope Nintendo stops making hardware? The opposite is true, in fact. I just see the reality before me and recognize it as the strong possibility it is. That doesn't mean I want it to happen.

Assuming Switch will have the same support than 3DS just by Magic is naïve, especially since it still needs to bé proven that its thé 3DS successor , so yes sales are important, if it doesnt sell more than GameCube , you can say goodbye to any long term support

Yes, it really does.

Yes it does matter because money is the most important thing in this industry. 

So Nintendo is, in their own words "utilizing smart devices aggressively". However, you are dismissive of anyone that see this as the beginning of a pivot from Nintendo when this message regarding the mobile platform differs vastly from the message they were telling investors just 3 years ago. They went from a "let's wait and see" approach to "guns blazing" in a matter of three years. Here you are telling me that Nintendo intends on nothing more than keeping the mobile endeavours as more or less cheap advertising to get people to buy more Nintendo hardware, but are we really seeing that? Sure, Nintendo calls it a "communication channel" but how is that implied? Does it mean adversiing, or do they see it as a medium where the games are the communcation. That is, do they view the method of playing a video game on a home console as "communication channel" as well? You're assuming they mean advertising here. I'm not so sure. And. sure we're seeing a slight uptick in 3DS sales, sales of which that are still dramatically down year on year compared to DS sales, but is that a maintainable solution? Is the added boost to hardware and software sales more profitable than the mobile game itself, and if so, will that trend continue.

But again, with Sega, you're failing to understand, Sega no longer makes game consoles because it became more profitable for them to just make games instead. That's the long and short of it. IPs, money in the bank, all of that does not matter. Profit drives publicly traded companies. Nothing more, nothing less. Nintendo is no exception. If Nintendo's leadership fail to meet expectations then new leadership will be put in place to make the decisions that will allow Nintendo to do so.

And if you think i want Nintendo to fail, you're ignorant. Flat out. Just because I believe they will fail as they're proceeding doesn't mean I want them to. All your seeing that somone that is a Nintendo fan, but not a Nintendo fanboy. Learn the difference.