Actually....

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/02/tatsumi_kimishima_talks_about_a_potential_3ds_successor

It appears he actually does hint at a 3DS successor in the future. I can't find anything where he claims nothing is in development. Besides, even if something isn't in development at this time doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't intend on creating a 3DS successor seperate from the Switch.

Totally a sound business decision to base your companies future on the impenetrable, unbreakable, plastic lockout.

Oh wait...

actually, in an interview a week later.........

http://time.com/4662446/nintendo-president-switch-interview/

"We are not creating a successor to the 3DS right now. We are, however, still thinking of portable systems. We are thinking of ways that we will be able to continue bringing portable gaming systems out, so yes, we are thinking of different ways to continue the portable gaming business."

We are in the 7th year of 3DS and they arent working on a successor at the moment, even if they got started working on it this year it would still be a few years away from release since R&D for a new system takes years. Does a 3DS successor 3-4 years from now when 3DS is long dead and gone sound realistic? No it does not.

The "still thinking about portable systems" part is likely referencing the at the time unannounced New 2DS XL or a future portable only Switch revision.

"Less successful" doesn't equal "Failure".

In my opinion, at least.

Can you please enlighten me why R&D on a system has to take a few years?

And of course, this assumes that a) he's being honest about such a system not being in development and b)  that the underlying technology needed to produce such a system isn't in development. For example, Sony worked on the underlying Playstation Move technology for close on a decade before making the Playstation Move out of it in a fairly short time frame.

maybe it doesnt have to take a few years but historically it always has and there is nothing to suggest this is going to change.

I added an edit to the previous post. As I said, it's entirely possible that all of the underlying technology needed to create a product that they "totally don't intend on making" is in development as we speak. It's entirely plausible that such a product if it did exist in some form would be denied outright because it would undoubtedly affect 3DS sales until it's release.

See for example:

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/nintendo-nx-release-will-reportedly-spell-an-early-end-for-the-wii-u-1317595

and

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nintendo-denies-end-of-wii-u-production-this-week-2/

See that's the biggest problem with PR speak. It's completely unreliable on both sides of the coin, and should never be used to completely dismiss possibilities.

lets rewind a few posts back

you are telling myself and others to take Nintendo's word then proceed to tell us not too........

No, no. I'm saying that saying "see Nintendo is definitely doing X" or "Nintendo is definitely not doing Y" is ridiculous because it's PR speak. All I've been saying in all of this is that Nintendo hasn't actually said the things people are interpreting them as saying - not that my interpretation of what they could possibly saying with the PR speak is correct. My entire argument this entire time is "you think Nintendo definitely means this, when it could easily be interpreted this other way" not "my way is the right way of interpreting this".

I'm not actually saying that Nintendo is definitely not making a more portable switch as a 3DS replacement that plays most of the Switch's games in the same form factor - in fact I think they'll be fools not to. All I've been saying is that Nintendo has made incredibly foolish decisions in the past, and we shouldn't assume that they won't make such boneheaded decisions out of nothing but pure greed again.

Understand?

Your first paragraph turns your entire argument for the entire 30+ posts into nothing but hot air. Congrats, dude.

Your second paragraph shows once again this strange logic that Nintendo had been stupid in the past and therefore will be stupid in the future. Only difference to last time is that now you name greed as the root. While at the same time acknowledging that Switch iterations should be done business wise because Nintendo clearly makes more money that way. This makes me the third person in a single thread to tell you to make up your mind.