It really is that simple, not sure why people insist on jumping through hoops to prove otherwise.

It is both. I am saying from a Market perspective it is taking more customers from a handheld market. 

A handheld market with $300 hardware and $60 games? In what dimension?

The price point is console, but if you made Switch just handheld or just console, which would sell more? The answer of course is the hybrid version because it overlaps both markets. As a handheld it currently sells as a high end handheld. I mean people do pay $1000 for a gaming laptop.

It's a combination of reasons, one of the is the cpu. it's not the only one.

It's a weak home console and a too large handheld.

It's an expensive handheld, for sure. Nintendo's expensive and it's become more expensive recently. There's a lot of technology in there. It's like tablets, there are $400 tablets and $1000 tablets.

I play it in handheld 95% of the time have no problem with the size. The best part about it is there is almost no difference controls wise between docked and handheld. But I barely ever play it docked.

You know what's the irony?. That in the real life and in my own language i am recognized as a too direct... or "blunt" like you said, because i don't like stupid conversations. But here..., we live in a society, with rules!!!

I've  been George Costanza'ed i guess...

Having to be both will certainly cause it to have certain drawbacks.

Having to be act as a handheld means that it cant be as powerful, have Blu-Ray or a HDD like a dedicated home console.

Being powerful enough to offer console games means that it cant be as small, cheap or long battery life or a dedicated handheld.

But truly neither of those things make something a handheld or console. Wii in 2007/2008 was as weak or weaker than Switch in 2017/2018, that makes it no less of a console. Game Gear was just as big or bigger than Switch yet it was still a handheld.

I don't see you providing any actual argument as to why usage isn't a good way in determining what a device is...

Let's say everybody used their phone like you do - let's say first and foremost as a media device (I'm guessing here) & rarely to make calls - wouldn't it then make more sense to categorise it as a media device rather than a phone?

Surely usage is a better indicator than the status quo of nomenclature which can very often become inaccurate or irrelevant as the device / sector evolves.

I can use my phone to throw at annoying people's heads, but it wouldn't make my phone a true weapon.

I can use my laptop to run games and I can connect my laptop to the TV, but it wouldn't make my laptop a true home console.