I can tell the difference, but they didn't need to change that much to make it portable only, and they choose to do it instead of a table console. That really should indicate what Nintendo see as more important market to them.

I don't think the budget or relative success of each market has any bearing on the matter.  I'm focusing on the actual machine itself.

If they released the exact same processing hardware without any portability, it seems that you're saying that would make it a console.  So taking what would be a console and putting a screen on it would make it not a console?

Wait... I thought the Switch was the first 9th gen console and wasn't really competing with the PS4 and X-Box One. What happened to that?

I dunno.  Maybe you should go find some people who advocate that position, and ask them.

Nah.  I just don't really think the concept of generations really applies anymore, at least in regards to Nintendo, since they sort of abandoned that model arguably over a decade ago.  It makes sense when companies are maintaining hardware parity, or at least launching at around the same time.  When companies aren't doing that, and are introducing significant hardware revisions mid-"gen", it doesn't really work anymore.  Bottom line is that they're both the primary products being offered by their respective companies, and each company would much rather you spend money on their product (and games for it) than the other.  

Because the competitor is incompetent.

Because they have expertise on consumer electronics like Tv's, Movies, Music and other entertainments. If you combine all of those then you will understand why they succeeded. The PS5 will be something very very special...even for Nintendo and Xbox fans...

Cos Nintendo went with cartridges in the N64.
It snowballed into third parties going to PS1, making it popular, and creating a virtuous cicle where playstation had the best third party games because it is popular and is popular because has the best games.

I've heard a similar sort of reasoning before.  This was a lot of people told me in the mid to late 2000s about the housing market in the US.  I kept saying, "You have to consider both the best case and worst case scenario when getting a home loan."  More people than I can count told me, "those old housing principles don't really apply anymore.  We're in a new housing market now.  You're guaranteed to significantly beat inflation, so getting the biggest possible loan that you can."  Then they'd try to convince me that I needed to buy a new house ASAP.  The most surprising thing to me is how quickly people dismiss established principles if things look different for a short time.  If something is off, then don't be dismissive.  Be suspicious.

Of course, in this case it's no big loss to be wrong.  Who cares, right?  But I still find it interesting how easy it is for people to dismiss established principles, whether the stakes are low or the stakes are high.

It is Nintendo's 9th generation console though. Like Wii U was in line with 8th gen. They only cut its life short due to its sales (or lack thereof).

OT: They made/make consoles to attract third parties, which made PS such a hit. FFVII blew up and sold a lot of consoles and went from there. Strong first party support throughout the generations as well.

I don't think that's an apt analogy.

With the concept of generations we're not talking about a principle.  We're simply talking about categorization.  Whether we call the Switch an 8th generation console, a 9th generation console, or abandon the concept altogether, it doesn't change anything about how gaming actually works.  Whatever generation we consider the Switch should have no bearing on how we predict the gaming market will play out.

What is objective is that the Switch launched several years after the PS4 and XBox One and its processing capabilities are not on par with them.  Those underlying facts really don't change based on what generation you consider the Switch to be.  On the other hand, people were actually under a grave misunderstanding of the facts when it came to the housing markets.