So... the Switch is portable because the 3DS had no successor... then what is the Wii U's successor?

There is no successor for WiiU, Nintendo is selling a console to the handheld market and this is a fact, exactly 6 years after 3DS, they launched Switch. I own a Switch and i have only used it as handheld and the same all the people i know. This thread is about the successful home console standard playstation, not portables or hybrid consoles. On the topic, Play Station is the only home consoles series that is selling over 85m every generation since 1994, a goal its competitors achieved only once in the home console market. :)

Go back a step.

Your argument is that the Switch is a handheld because the 3DS has no successor.  The Wii U also has no successor.

So, then, how is the fact that the 3DS has no successor at all relevant?

Better read again, 3DS having no successor of the DS series confirmed Switch is the successor, since they didnt released another handheld, Switch is the continuation of 3DS, since it alignes with the 6 year cycle of a nintento handeld, DS-3DS-Switch. Simple logic.

Did you forget that Nintendo consolidated their home console and portable console R&D offices to support the switch?

Using a 6-year cycle to defend succession is not a reliable argument.

So by that logic, the Switch is the Wii U's successor, since they didn't release another home console.

The Gameboy launched in 1989, the Gameboy color in 1998, the GBA in 2001, the DS in 2004, and the 3DS in 2010. There is no 6 year cycle... Something happening one time is not a cycle.

We can all agree that his point on no successsor doesn't make the Switch to be HH.

But when looking at the system itself even as a hybrid a lot more concessions needed to be made to be a portable while the only thing that is really hapening to be "console" is the dock that could very well be just a cable since there isn't even active cooling in that dock. Also considering Portable have always been much more succesfull for Nintendo it makes sense to think they cut out most on their console market and kept most on their hh.

There were zero concessions made to the Nintendo home console experience.

I didn't actually say it was a console. But whatever you call it, it's a pretty direct competitor to the PS4.

I don't know if I'd agree that their handhelds have been more successful.  Even if it were the case though, I don't think that really makes a difference to what the Switch is.  I'm also not sure why concessions would really make a difference.

What exactly would make it qualify as a console?  Say Nintendo instead of deciding to go the portable route decided that they just wanted to make a really cheap console.  They put all of the guts of the Switch in a box that is pretty much exactly the same as the switch, except it didn't have a screen, and it had an hdmi out directly on the console.  Is this machine a console?

That type of argument didn't hold water three years ago and that hasn't changed. A home console/handheld console hybrid has to be portable by definition, so Switch being portable doesn't mean that it's just a handheld. If Switch had the size of even just the Wii (a small home console), it would already be laughably big for something that is supposed to be portable. What sets a hybrid console apart from a handheld that connects to the TV is its functionality, and like I said in my previous response, Nintendo didn't have to make any concessions to their home console experience for Switch.

Your question is pointless because Nintendo stayed in both markets.