What if Nintendo view the Switch as an ecosystem and they never launch Switch 2.
We are in a World where generations are meaningless, what the future holds in terms of what Nintendo does is unknown. Investors have been pushing them towards mobile for years and they haven't really invested all that much there. So what they do sometimes is opposite of what the market expects them to do.
In terms of the technology to deliver high-end AAA games on a hybrid console while being profitable, we are a few years away. So for now I'd expect Slight upgrades to hardware but not enough to warrant them retiring the Switch. So it could very well be that in 2025 Nintendo still is selling it's games on the Switch even though OG Switches might not support the latest games. Tablets like these will eventually break, and you would need to buy a replacement. So they could indefinitely slowly upgrade the core-parts in the Switch without ever dropping the price or changing the name. Like I mentioned a while ago, Tablet Technology isn't at this stage but Complimentary Computing devices or the aptly named ProDock might be the thing they use to both support AAA games on the console or stream to the tablet.
We shall see but I don't think it would be that difficult to outsell the PS4, the DS will be the real hurdle for the Switch.
Generations is only meaningless if you live in a Nintendo World.
PS3 > PS4/Pro > PS5
X360 > X1/X1X > XSX
The generations are very clear and the upcoming generation is going to be a very nice upgrade in terms of power and graphics. Very much looking forward to it.
Nintendo was never able to keep up in the hardware department, this is why the generations seems deluge to people who only follows Nintendo.
You must be very young if you think Nintendo never kept up in hardware department.
NES, SNES, and N64 were all the most powerful popular systems of their gen (I say popular cuz I wouldn't count failures like Neo Geo). Gamecube was second most powerful system of its gen.
In fact it's only when Sony started trying to compete on power with the PS3, that Nintendo decided to not do the exact same thing as the other two companies in the industry (not saying the two are related as obviously Nintendo starting work on the Wii well before Sony announced the power of the PS3, but just saying the two companies switched at the same time - Sony going from making the least powerful systems to competing for the most powerful systems, and Nintendo going from competing for the most powerful systems to making the least powerful systems but doing that for a reason - making unique systems).
Only starting with the Wii did they decide to go with the creative route over the make really expensive high graphics route, and that is because if they stuck to what they always did they woulda just been in a lame 3-way competition all trying to do the same thing and the video game industry would just have 3 incredibly similar systems, also the probably realized continuing to do this would result in the $400-$600 systems we've seen from Micro/Sony and Nintendo I think prefers making affordable systems that are more consumer friendly. They certainly could have kept competing on power alone, and done well, but instead they built a separate market for Nintendo that makes them unique and very successful as long as they don't screw up on the creative factor like they did with the Wii U. Since changing their strategy in order to stand out from the console twins, two out of three systems have been their most successful consoles, with the Switch looking extremely likely to be their second most successful system ever behind DS.
And in what way are generations meaningless in Nintendo World?! It's the exact opposite! Sony and Microsoft you get more power but essentially the same, just upgraded, experience each new gen. Nintendo the past few gens you've got motion controls, a tablet second screen, and then a hybrid system. If anything the past 3 generations of Nintendo systems have been much more meaningful than those made by Sony and Microsoft.