When somewhere between 60 and 70% of all games being sold are digital in 2019/2020, I highly doubt a digital only Portable PS4 is going to get a lot of backlash. Sure you will have the vocal few on Youtube, Twitter, etc., but your average consumer that already buys digital would love having their entire library available on a PS4 Switch/Portable/Phone. By the mid 2020's physical games will likely be in the 10 - 15% range, and continue to hold that niche space from there on out.

As for the chip. Are you just choosing to ignore the Ryzen Mobile APU line? 

Everything AMD is doing going forward is focused on Performance Per Watt and Scalability. It is more likely than not that Nvidia Mobile (Terga/ARM CPU & Geforce GPU) and AMD Mobile (Ryzen Mobile/X86 CPU & Radeon GPU) will continue in lock step. 

...and that would make it a PS4 portable and thus part of the PS4 family, not a seperate product.

But hey that could work in a special way, similar to the Sega Nomad:

Since the PS4 is still selling gangbusters, Sony can delay their PS5 for now. In 2-3 years, a mobile tablet chip based on a very shrinked  (7nm) Jaguar or Ryzen (still stating Jaguar for perfect compatibility) and a Radeon Navi/subsequent release with roughly the same power as the PS4 may be possible. Releasing that at around the same time as the PS5 as the final evolution of the PS4 may extend the latter's life by quite some years. Main differences apart from power and games lineup to the Switch: No cartridges, it's digital only. But the Ps4 mobile can install games from discs because the dock will have a disc slot for full compatibility with any other PS4. Also some sideport memory to "store" some  game from disc temporarely a bit in a way like the cartridges do, but with the drawback that to change out this game, one has to connect it again with the dock.

Main problem with such a PS4 mobile: It would probably be more expensive to produce and thus have a higher pricetag than the upcoming PS5 at release.

The Western people who always love the best graphic possible on big screen and also physical games. The ones love digital only are mostly the people who only play handheld and that number is big in smartphone with 96% free to play games. The ps4/5 portable will have majority of free to play games or something? 

Does that mean that Microsoft gets money from the two Donkey Kong Country games that Rare makes? No, it doesn't because Nintendo owns the name and all of the characters in the series.

8 hours only? Switch is only 6 hours tops. How much power does X1 use in Nvidia Shield console format and how much heat does it produce? So $300 is too expensive but $250 is not, because Switch is $300. PS is going to love all that free cash, and would probably use it to create an even better handheld/hybrid. Digital only is DOA, but putting half or two thirds the game on the cart and forcing you to download the rest is totally different and just fine, especially once your lack of internal storage is full and you have to buy expansion storage on top of that?

I think they may be color blind to red/orange. They seem to acknowledge the PS4 APU as well as anything Nvidia, in which case both had green color scheme's back then, but now that AMD is red/orange, they don't seem pick up on Ryzen.

Well if MS owns Rare and Rare licenses DKC from Nin, then yes, MS gets all if not a portion of the profits that Rare would keep, and Nin gets whatever their licensing fee is and possibly a percentage of the profits on top, depending on how the deal is arranged. Just because you own the right to something doesn't mean you always gain all profits from it. I have the right to free speech, but I don't profit off of every other person who speaks freely, yet I do 'profit' to some degree.

Hence why I said "if". If MS and Rare aren't involved then obviously they wouldn't receive any money, if they were, they would most certainly receive money. Unless the Pokemon games are 100% completely separate in every way from the rest of the Pokemon franchise, which is highly unlikely, Nin would have to pay PS their 66% share overall. Just because Nin has the specific rights to name/names, doesn't mean all profits from that portion all go to Nin if they only hold a third portion of the overall franchise.

I mention this in a prior post, which is fine. Nin says no to Pokemon on PS devices. So either PS uses their majority stake to ruin Pokemon however they decide to do so, screwing over Nin, or Nin can hold onto it and do nothing with it, or they can continue to make Pokemon games and give PS two thirds of the profits for doing absolutely nothing.

It was started by the fact that another user mentioned what if Switch failed due to a PS portable being on the market, in which case they thought Pokemon would be the solution. Well no Switch means no Pokemon on Switch, and since Switch apparently is going to be the all in one unit and handheld is basically going away, it would mean that Pokemon would have no Nin hardware to launch on and therefore would really have little choice but to end up on PS devices, mainly the portable handheld/hybrid. I also mentioned this entire scenario is unlikely since Switch is doing so well and looks to have some legs at the very least, yet it keeps getting brought up, so.

Well it was more like if Switch was crushed by the PS portable and had to give up the hybrid space, almost like Wii U, which was replaced as quickly as possible. There was also mention of another Nin device, which of course would be possible eventually, but the other user doesn't like guessing about the future without using facts that exist now, so since there is no indication of another Nin device, well. Does Nin only own a minority portion of Zelda and Mario? If Nin owns 100%, they can do whatever they want. If they only own a minority, they can only try to work together with the other shareholders, and if those shareholders don't like the stance taken, they are free to sell their shares. Since Pokemon is that important to Nin, I'm sure they would try and purchase enough of those to own a majority, if not all of them, to make sure this wasn't a problem again. Whether they could bid the highest, or if those other shareholders wanted to sell their shares to another company just because, like out of spite, which also does happen due to major disagreements, who knows?