I guess we need to simplify what we are writing here. You obviously believe the Switch will have performance upgrades over the next few years, I guess by contrast I believe they will use an improved fabrication process to improve the form factor and reduce the size plus possibly offer the current docked performance level while portable for a later revision if it has a 1080p screen which maybe a sku that can also be used with a VR headset as per their patent.

I don't see the connection with smartphones or tablets. It's pretty clear Nintendo themselves are making their product purely a gaming platform and not a multi-functional device, their approach is not really any different to previous consoles. They could have offered higher performance mid generation versions of many of their previous consoles but didn't it is no different now. When Monolith did xenoblade for the wii they used low level access to the hardware to get the maximum performance out of the wii console and I assume the same was true of wii u. I just can't see Nintendo a company that sells low performance hardware above normal retail prices moving to mid-level un-optimised software platform that would highlight the weaknesses of their hardware so they can allow for multiple sku's of varying performance level's. Do we even want a pc approach for Nintendo that will bring with it more bugs and more playability issues. Who wants to own the older Nintendo hardware that struggles with frame rates?

Surely the benefit of Switch hardware is every game runs exactly as intended on every Switch device, it's super convenient and low level access to the hardware gives benefits to performance. I certainly don't favour a split userbase myself.

Tegra X1 compatible chipset at 7nm could be tiny, cheap and have few low power requirements, might be able to get 10-12hrs in standard Switch mode and perhaps 5hrs plus in docked level performance mode depending on battery and screen used. 

Alternatively a customised version of the same chipset that while 100% compatible with X1 offers enhanced cpu and gpu speed options for a VR mode perhaps with a 2.2ghz cpu clock speed instead of 1ghz and a 800mhz gpu speed plus dedicated high speed frame buffer memory. This would make VR versions of existing games very easy you could simply allow patch's for existing Switch games to make them VR compatible rather than to completely rewrite the games. Just enough performance so existing Switch games could be run at 1080p 70/72fps enough for entry level VR.

Pascal isn't a 2017 chip. Volta is. Launching Q4 this year.

If you think opting for a smaller, more power hungry, lower resolution screen is actually a good thing... Then I am not sure you could be convinced of anything with facts.

I am not saying just a lower power screen am I? I am also saying in conjunction with a higher performance, more energy efficient SoC... Like something based around Pascal.

Plus, you obviously haven't been paying attention to Notebooks, Tablets, Phones and other battery powered mobile devices with a screen. - What happens when you turn down the brightness? You can save a ton of batter power.
Screens are massive power hogs, more than you realise.

Which is why I have stipulated in using a more modern SoC to go along with it.

Evidence?

There is plenty of capacity. And no. They don't have to only go with TSMC.

I am well aware of the differences. The point I was trying to make there... And which has once again gone over your head... Is that these chips spend years in the planning and design, nVidia had a time frame for when Pascal Tegra would be ready. And that was in early 2016.

I suggest you read the links I provided within their intended context.

Irrellevant. That doesn't place Nintendo above criticism.
Not only that, it's not $300 world wide.

Or. They could simply sell the system at a loss, recoup that money with licenses and fees. Or pick better parts suppliers.
The price isn't my problem. Not sure how I could convey that any clearer.

Fabrication is not an argument you will ever win with me. You clearly haven't looked into 16nm/14nm processes properly.
If you think 16nm is actually a true 16nm process, then you have been well and truly fooled.

I do agree with this.

I would notice. In-case you werent aware there are a few Nintendo games that do not use *any* kind of anti-aliasing technology. Aliasing can look extremely prevelent on Switch and Wii U titles at 720P. Higher Resolutions do mitigate that.

The fact is... The human eye can resolve more pixels than 720P at 6.2". That's a fact.

Plus... The Human eye can exceed 20/20 vision as well, so just because you won't notice a difference... Doesn't mean someone sitting next to you will not notice.

While it's possible I'm not sure - I mean the New 3DS had 2 exclusives (I think) and Hyrule Warriors ran better on it BUT THAT'S IT. Hardly worth it. I think the Switch hardware will remain standardized, but the price will fall as I think the only thing stopping the Switch from selling massive numbers is the price point right now...

No you won't if you actually play the game/games. 

And I claim BS to you saying you can se the difference while playing on that tiny screen.

My main goal with a gaming console is to play the game not look at static images of the games.

More geometry, foilage, particles will always do more for the visual impact of a game than resolution and sure the switch might not have the power for this, but the resolution is not the problem.

But in reallity I don't even know why I felt the urge to respond to this thread in the first place since I really don't care about this. People that feel numbers are important won't be swayed by me and I don't care about the numbers since I think the games got visually "good enough" around FarCry 1 (PC at 1280*1024).

I can see the difference between 720P and 1440P on my 5.7" smartphone.

I could see the difference between 720P and 1080P on my old 4.5" smart phone. I don't think you get to tell me what differences I can/cannot see as per what I outlined prior. (Eyes exceeding 20/20, lack of Anti-Aliasing etc'.)

You do need less detail for a portable screen though. On my humble Athlon 5350 small form factor pc this it can run Fallout 4 with only low detail as per the screen below but on my linx vision 8" windows pc tablet the detail actually looks pretty good. It's very, very forgiving.  I've tried to simulate it by dropping the resolution on the following images to see if that shows it.

Still not apples to apples though.
Mobile screens you tend to use them closer to your eyes than say... A Telvision.

Display size and resolution is only part of the story, you actually need a 3rd reference point. Distance. Which is where: Perceived Pixels per Inch comes into play.