You say that like consoles are a brand new type of product. Assuming they may bend a little, sure, but to become a PC, assuming all their games are able to play on PC as well, really leaves them with little advantage, which is a big reason to keep them separate.

Consoles have changed quite a bit over the years never know they could evolve and find a new advantage.

Like how instead of Nin making a PC console they made a closed hybrid?

The one thing that matters is that Switch functions like a home console, because it's not missing any features that people expect based on previous Nintendo home consoles.

Since you are the point of origin of this discussion, I'll look over your justification. I am adding numbers to your post for better reference what I am replying to.

1. A common fallacy is to use Switch's portability as decisive factor to call it a handheld console, but a hybrid requires portability just as much as a standard handheld console, so portability in and of itself is not enough to classify a console. Someone has already said that PSP and PSV are hybrids as well, but that falls flat on its face because PSP and PSV games remain single-player games when connected to a TV, unlike on Switch where games can be played by up to eight people simultaneously. What makes Switch a hybrid is that it does both what a home console and what a handheld do.

2. If processing power were a decisive factor, the Wii wouldn't be a home console anymore. As such, your statement is irrelevant to the question at hand.

3. If AAA third party games were a decisive factor, the Wii wouldn't be a home console anymore. As such, your statement is irrelevant to the question at hand.

4. Switch is sold for $300 because it combines the functionality of two devices into one without making any significant compromises. As such, $300 isn't remotely close to greedy because a separate home console and handheld console amounted to $400+ in the preceding two generations. Switch games are sold for $60 because they are home console games.

5. This is a surprisingly accurate statement coming off four headscratchers in a row. It looks like you already realized at that point that you are flirting with a moderation, so you said something that's basically the opposite of your otherwise condescending and belittling tone.

6. This dichotomy of direct/indirect competition has taken on a life on its own. It's much more accurate to call the market situation symmetrical/asymmetrical competition, because that refers to competition that is either based on the same set of values on offer or on different sets of values. PS4 and Switch are different, but both compete for the customer who is looking for console games, so they are in direct competition for the same dollars. XB1 is in symmetrical competition with the PS4 while Switch is in asymmetrical competition with the PS4. Indirect competition would be something like console vs. smartphone games. Symmetrical competition results in more of a zero sum game whereas asymmetrical competition is additive, provided any given customer has the money for more than one console.

7. zorg1000 already touched on how flawed that statement is. The Switch sales trend strongly suggests that customers take their pick whether they use Switch as home console, handheld console or even both, therefore making the console a perfectly viable hybrid instead of merely a handheld console that is connected to a TV like you try to insinuate.

8. Ah yes, the classic "Nintendo is for kids" line. Looks like point 5 has become irrelevant by this point and is indeed not a point that interconnects with the rest of your post, but is positioned as a shield of sorts.

9. Sounds like you are trying to comfort yourself because Switch is selling so well. Unsurprisingly, your description of gamer progression is inaccurate because it has three steps and not just two. Firstly, a lot of people do start out with Nintendo. Secondly, a lot of the same people turn their backs on Nintendo when they become teenagers and "grow up". Thirdly, a lot of the people who turned their backs on Nintendo eventually come back when they've truly grown up and reached adulthood, recognizing that age rating on games has nothing to do with actual maturity.

10. That's a fitting analogy to close out your post. Fitting, because it should remove the last doubts anyone could have had about your mindset. Point 5 stands out as something that doesn't fit in with the rest of the post.

Lastly, I wouldn't say the Switch is a duck. It's more like a raccoon with a P-Wing.

Well so you think. Actually the whole board inside the Switch is modular and can be directly replaced with the Tegra X2 or Tegra X2i.

I wasn't really talking about hardware in terms of the closed aspect, but how many Switch owners have upgraded to that? Zero? If it's just a design feature so Nin can upgrade it later then that doesn't make it an open platform.

That's right! Online alone is probably....I'd peg it at around......gen 5.5. Not quite at the level of the XBL rollout in 2002, but comfortably ahead of the Sega Saturn.

Nope, it isn't. If a competitor entering the market doesn't shift your sales (and PS4 had it's best year when Switch launched, and this year is like 2nd or 3rd best with the decline being natural for the age of the console and hitting peak last year) then it isn't a direct competitor.

If Xbox wasn't on the market (mainly USA and UK) PS4 sales would have been considerably higher.

Come next gen and if Switch 2 eat away market from PS5 or X4 then you can claim this.

Damn.. That Smash Bros. effect though..

With regards to a couple of the ongoing squabbles - can I play the Switch as a home console? Then it's a home console. It's also a handheld console. It's literally as simple as this folks. There's such a thing as grey area, it doesn't have to be black and white.

Additionally, yes the Switch is a competitor to the PS4. The Switch is a video game console. The PS4/Xbox One are also video game consoles. Again, simple stuff, people. They even have many of the exact same games.

Sure you could say they are vastly different in certain areas, and that there are segments of the market that Nintendo will reach that Sony simply will not, and vice versa, but I don't know how you can do these mental gymnastics trying to justify how two video game consoles (no matter how different), aren't inevitably going to have at least some overlap in terms of competing for the same market. They compete for the same dollars of largely the same market of people who play video games.

Put it this way - When I decide to invest in Smash Bros Ultimate, that's money out of my pocket that I likely would have been more inclined to spend on, say Assassin's Creed Odyssey for my Xbox One, which I otherwise am going to be waiting a bit for a price drop on that one. When I decide to pick up another Xbox One controller, that causes me to hold off on snagging that extra pair of expensive joycons. And so on.. It also is a competition for my gaming time, as I can only play one console at a time.

I do find it interesting that you only tend to hear these justifications as to how Nintendo is doing a "different thing" when they are outselling the competition. When they are not though, people sure are quick to harp on the fact the non-competing PS4 is outperforming the Switch..

Can't you see how silly that sounds though...

Nintendo employs the same people it did before Switch came out, makes the same games, sells to the same market - yet according to you they have pulled out of 1 business, are pulling out of another and have moved into a completely new business...

Does it not make more sense that that by creating a single hybrid they remain in both the handheld and home console markets? 

Take the Surface Book - it's a hybrid - it's design allows it to be a tablet and a laptop, rather than precludes it from being either - which seems to be what you're saying...