Switch is its own thing too. 

Also when you do get to PS3/360/Wii U tier graphics at least for now, there is definitely still a certain decent wow factor to that level of graphics for today. That is giving the Switch a lot of it's "wow", because quite frankly there's never been a game that looks like Zelda and has the scope of Zelda playable on the go like that. 

To maintain that advantage, I would say yes, absolutely Nintendo would want to likely improve the chip at some point, especially so they don't fall 2 generations behind. If you start getting mobile games that have equal/better graphics to Switch games, even if they're just a few it devalues the Switch concept. Even worse some devs might inevitably want to port Switch games to mobile as mobile chips get more powerful, just saying "well we have buttons" doesn't excite people. Visual performance does matter. The Switch would not be selling nearly as well if its Zelda looked like a game that's 2 generations behind modern console gaming like this:

Even if it was a great, great game ... that's not something someone today looks at and goes "wow! I need to pre-order that as soon as possible!". The Switch concept doesn't work.

The Switch is suceeding because it's going upmarket from even the 3DS and offering big experiences that people are not accustomed to on a portable device (yes even the 3DS). Experiences that until now they would only expect from a real home console. And that's needed today because smartphones/tablets dominate the lower tier/budget area of portable gaming. Nintendo has to go upstream with a much higher end experience to justify why people should consider buying their product. Just having buttons and badly dated graphics doesn't cut it -- the 3DS over the last three years had the lowest shipments for Nintendo portable hardware over the last 20 years, buttons wasn't saving it. 

Once PS5 rolls around circa 2020, you're going to want a hardware refresh to stay within a generation IMO, so you can maintain the Switch's position as the defacto high end portable experience (by a big margin) and also stay well clear of any smartphone games. 

The revisions have never been a big difference from each other like what's in the OP, N3DS had a slightly better cpu and DSi had some improved wifi and storage. The only thing close to a sku like what you two are thinking of is the GB to GBC and the latter went on to be its own platform and was only released because the GBA got delayed.

Nintendo do revisions but no SKUs that differ significantly in performance.

I think we'll see a smaller Switch capable of "docked mode" while not docked, possibly with 1080p screen and 4+ hour battery, and a power saving mode which is the "undocked mode", for 6+ hours batttery. It's unlikely they add new, beefier modes this early, or it'll be a hassle for developers (imagine if you had 1 more power mode to work with every couple years) and unwelcome for old owners.

3ds and n3ds CPU is in a completely different ballpark though. Dual core 268Mhz vs newer Quad core 804Mhz. It isn't really that much used by developers but very, very clear with homebrew emulators.

Dayum, didn't think RAM for phones was that expensive.

Well the homebrew scene aren't developing the games in the library plus the different CPU was only added because of Xenoblade otherwise the revision wouldn't even have a different CPU.

The DSi had a CPU that was doubled in power and RAM increased by 4 times by the way (on top of added cameras). Just so we're clear on that. The "Nintendo would never do, becuase they've never done that before" crowd has taken a lot of losses the last couple of years anyway. 

When people suggested a hybrid console: "Nintendo would never make a single hardware device, they've always made two hardware lines, a portable and a home console, they'll never change that" (wrong)

When people said Nintendo was going to bail on the Wii U: "Nintendo will not stop supporting the Wii U, not before a full five years is up, they've never done that before with a console" (wrong)

When reports surfaced of Nintendo choosing Nvidia for the NX chip: "Nintendo won't work with Nvidia, they've never done that before in the past, it will be an AMD chip gaurunteed" (wrong)

When people said Zelda would be a Switch/NX title: "Nintendo won't do that. Every Nintendo console has it's own Zelda game." (wrong)

Nintendo does things people don't think Nintendo would do all the time. Even last year I remember I was arguing with a poster who said he was a programmer of games and said that multi-tiered platforms ... like a Nintendo system with two graphics settings, a upgraded Playstation 4, and an upgraded XBox One would not only never happen but was impossible for developers to support. Look at where we are today. 

I feel making Switch an ecosystem rather than a single system is Nintendo's way of co-opting the fact that they've been reduced to one hardware line also. So they'll keep the older weaker Switch around, but IMO they will sell it concurrently eventually with a higher end model too. It makes them money and keeps the Switch concept fresh. 

I agree it's succeeding because he convienace of playing games where you want and how you want ... but it's *console* scale games that makes the concept work. It ain't Bomberman that's selling that system. There's a reason Zelda has an attach rate over 100%. 

Vita and 3DS can play anywhere, any time too. I can't take a four hour poop and play Zelda on my 3DS too. Matter of fact these systems are more convienant that the Switch in that regard (longer battery life for one) if you strictly want to take convienance. There's no "wow" factor about that. 

Switch has the "wow factor" but it's because it's the first device that portably can run a game people would look at and say "hey this is a home console game". OK, the performance isn't dead on, but the scope/scale of the game is close enough that for now Nintendo can blur that line. 

The concept IMO does not work if you lose that aspect over time. Saying "well we have buttons" isn't good enough to keep consumer enthusiasm. 

Switch is an upmarket product and for good reason, Nintendo would be in trouble if they made another cheap, little rinky dink portable with PS Vita graphics instead of pushing the envelop a little harder with the Switch. So yes, even though hardware performance has a part to play in the equation. I think you override any kind of nuance on this issue because you had so many arguements with PS/XBox fans during the Wii era, but it colors basically any kind of opinion you have on this issue (10 year old internet arguments). 

For now the Switch can produce plausibly relevant games that are relatively comparable to what people think of home console games as. Relatively close, doesn't have to be exact. At least keep it within a generation gap. But if you let that gap grow too big, then basically all you have is an oversized 3DS, and 3DS shipments have been mediocre for several years now (especially in the West), even with a small uptick from Pokemon Go, they are historically low for Nintendo. 

The DSi had the same DS CPU in the the two arm processors it was not twice the power like you claim one processor was clocked at a higher speed while the other was the same speed as before so it was slightly faster than previous models.

You seem to have a habit of bending things to fit your argument for a start most people were flat out saying NX was more than likely going to be a hybrid as it makes business sense and saves resources. Nvidia were likely to be involved in this case as they already have a family of GPUs that are up for the job and were never sold although it was understandable if people were unsure given Nvidia's past unwillingness to budge on prices, most people expected Wii U to be dropped due to it doing badly and NX being announced two years into its life and Zelda being delayed was similar to the case with TP. The majority of people picked up on most of these likely scenarios just because you argued with a few people here doesn't change that.

The reason why Nintendo is unlikely to do what you're saying with new skus here and there with different power is because of their business model plus the problems it will give developers. Right now the are two configurations and more skus adds two more per sku developers have to deal with plus the games themselves would not change as they'd all be designed for the lowest setting regardless making it a pointless, Nintendo would rather have one performance level for 6-7 years before using the next viable hardware they did it for years when the was no competition so what makes you think they'll change when the is non currently now? It took the PSP to force them to make a 3D capable handheld for reference.

As I mentioned above the may be revisions but I don't see skus with significantly different performances like X1 and Scorpio as the last time they did that with the GBC the revision became its own platform and it only existed because the GBA was delayed as well. The is already an ecosystem Nintendo has mapped out and started and Switch is part of it as is Mobile and all the other upcoming ventures they have planned.

This is easy for you to say now. Fact is there was huge resistance on this board and a whole lot of "Nintendo won't do that, they've never done that before" to many things people just hand wave today as "obvious". 

I was telling Nintendo fans here that they should be paying attention to the Nvidia Tegra X1 *two years ago* when no one else was talking about it. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=199146&page=1

I was talking about a hybrid like a year before the Switch unveil too:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=207717&page=1

So I've put up with a lot of "Nintendo won't do that, they'd never do that" and then you never hear a peep from those people when it does happen. I think Emily Rogers was called things like a bitch/whore/etc. and for saying Nintendo was using Nvidia too. 

I was getting killed by a lot of Nintendo fans here also for saying Nintendo was not going to support Wii U for a 5 full years and it was not going to get its own real Animal Crossing game as such, now no one utters a peep about that either, it's just "oh yeah, it was obvious Nintendo was going to do that", like I always laugh at that because when I suggested that in the past I had several posters getting upset, so no I don't think it was as obvious as people say. 

I even said spot on that all the people who were super angry about the Wii U being abandoned would only need about 10 seconds of seeing Mario on NX to get over it, and it was funny reading the Switch reveal trailer and basically seeing that exact transformation right on cue. 

"Nintendo's never done that in the past ..." is an empty arguement to me, Nintendo does a lot of things their own fanbase swears they'd never do, and I've seen it like many, many times. Market conditions change, priorities change constantly.