Tegra X2 was not an option if they were aiming for a holiday 2016 launch, which is what I'm pretty sure Nintendo was trying for.

Iwata's death (possibly) and typical software delays at Nintendo caused a small delay into 2017, but that was never the intended launch date even if it worked out well for Nintendo.

Software delays is a poor excuse. I feel like that's a strawmans argument now.
The Switch's OS and Software stack is far from fully fleshed out and mature anyway... And it's derived from Android, leveraging nVidia's Software stacks, so it's not like the effort was all on Nintendo at any rate.

Not to mention allot of the software, API's and drivers that work with Maxwell based tegra also... *drum roll* works on Pascal based Tegra. Funny that.
Thus it shouldn't have been a hindrance with the SoC choice.

Getting a 2015 SoC in a 2016 (intended) Nintendo system is about as good as you're gonna get, mate. 

Not sure what exactly you thought was going to happen, you were never getting a 2017 chip in a 2017 Nintendo system, you should know better than that if you know anything about the industry.

They'll probably use the X2 for the first round of Switch revisions in fiscal year 2018-19. 

It seems you don't get it and you missing point, I talking about current 6.2" screen and current chip, not how would that look at 8" screen powered buy more efficient chip.

Again you are that dont get it, lower power screen doesn't mean that will Switch use so much less power that will be able to run at higher clocks needed for 1080p and that battery life will remain same. You don't know if that will be some amount of power, hardly that Amoled screen could cover GPU power needed going from 307MHz to 756MHz. Also Amoled screen has more higher price than IPS so that also could effect on final selling Switch price.

Disagree, and actually we had infos that Nvidia 16nm yields are not good. Not to mention you would need to find production capacity and we already know that all 16nm productions capacity are very buked. You do realise that demonstration and availability for market are not same things, you will see when this last Tegra chip will be used, we even got 1st Tegra X1 devices in 2015. despite "Tegra X2/Parker was being designed as far back as 2013", and we still dont have one single Tegra X2 product on market. Also we got finals specs of Tegra X2 at end of Avgust 2016. not in 2013, 2014. or 2015.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/08/22/parker-for-self-driving-cars/

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-tegra-parker-soc-hot-chips/

What you feel about cost is very subjectively, objectively Nintendo was aiming at more affordable price point off around $300 because and they chased best parts that will fit in that price point while they still making profit on evre sold Switch unit. Yes they could make bigger Switch, bigger resolution, Amoled or some bette screen, more RAM, maybe even somehow X2 chip...but fact is that those things would raise selling price of Switch and you can bet that Switch wouldn't be so popular and great sales if had price point that is $350 or higher.

Tegra X2 is 16nm not 20nm.

NN are great partners and i hope their partnwrship last for long as possible

As I said previously it already has 2 performance states and by making a new portable perform at the docked performance level there is no issue at all. As for the PS4 pro I don't think it has the sales yet to split the userbase and maybe perceived later as an unsuccessful interim model when ps5 is replaces it in a year or so as the premium playstation. Personally I've been put off buying certain ps4 games because I haven't upgraded to a pro yet and having a 4k tv I thought I'd wait to get those games when I have a pro so I can experience them with higher quality visuals. So the ps4 range has become a bit messy. I can't really justify the pro upgrade yet but have held back on certain games as I fancy playing them when I do upgrade. It's not a clear cut buying decision.

There is a long history of split userbases where little or no enhancements were done for the higher spec model. Starting with the Commodore 128 and including many Nintendo devices like DSi, 3DS plus etc where the enhanced spec was little used and exclusive enhanced games were limited in number. 

Also I don't like the current Switch form factor. I would prefer it smaller with much longer battery life, trying to upgrade the performance would be counter-productive I think. I see the current Switch like the original DS but I'm more intersted in a DS lite version. I also only think the next Switch needs to offer docked performance mode while portable if they upgrade the screen to 1080p and the only reason they need to do that is if they offer a VR option. It wouldn't surprise me if they reduce the screen size slightly with the next Switch sku and unless VR is in the mix 720p is still fine.

Saying that I have to put my cards on the table and say the Switch doesn't currently appeal to me at all, the software range, the pricing and the size and asthetics of the console itself. I guess I'll jump aboard when a smaller Switch revision is available bundled with Mario Odyssey perhaps at a £199 price point perhaps sometime late next year.

I think one of the things people are going to have to learn with Switch is it's not like any Nintendo hardware line before it.

There are a lot of so-called "rules" that are going to be thrown out with Switch. It is not the Wii, not the DS, not the Wii U, not the GameCube, not the Game Boy.

It is the first Nintendo system made to function in the world of smartphones and tablets, which is a very, very different world for Nintendo. 

I agree, the hardware just lends itself to iterative design, and due to the nature of the tech it's built on rapid advancement is expected. You just can't continue using Tegra X1's for 5+ years, it won't happen.

On Switch in handheld mode you won't notice any difference between 720P and higher resolutions while playing a game. You maybe would notice it when you pause the game and just look for a long time on a still image.

It's all in your head and not something real.

I claim the same with a 65" 1080 P vs a 4K TV at a normal viewing distance (10-12 ft). If you turn the 10-bit pixel depth off on the 4K (becaus this is what can actually be a percieved difference) you would not be able to pick out the difference in a blind test. 

There are a lot of things like this that people only precieve if they've read the spec. sheet. The funniest group to poke at with things like this are Hi-Fi idiots and mp3 files form 192 kbps and up. Time and time again studies show that people can't hear the difference between uncompressed and mp3 (and in some cases lower bit rate files are favoured over higher bit rate files) in double blind tests. It has gotten to the point that the general consensus among people on Hi-Fi forums claim that controlled double bilnd test does't count. It's hillarious :)

Yeah and beyond that it exists in a completely different consumer landscape than what past Nintendo systems did. Kids today do not consume entertainment the same way they did even 10 years ago while Nintendo's own loyal fanbase has grown even older. Things have shifted radically. 

Switch is Nintendo shifting and changing to try and repostion themselves, just as the very design of the Switch itself breaks several "rules" of Nintendo hardware already, so too IMO will the evolution of the Switch ecosystem, and key there is the word ecosystem. I think Switch is an ecosystem, not simply just a game console, and no Nintendo hardware line has ever really made that leap. We've had model revisions before sure, but not a real ecosystem of differing hardware that can share software. 

That I think is going to be the big game changer for the Switch going forward, the days of a linear/kinda predictable NES to Super NES (five year break) to N64 etc. etc. etc. I think is going to radically alter with the Switch.