In your mind, yes, but not according to Nintendo's proclaimed direction. The Switch, its united library, and the paradigm of smart devices, will ultimately be Nintendo's direction as they claimed. One has already materialised, the other is yet to materialize. The OP is proof that this direction is finally taking form.

How many companies are really making game consoles that would require a next-generation Tegra chip? It's not a big club exactly. 

RDNA sucks anyway, Nvidia's architecture is better for Nintendo. 

I will post them as I find them, since I already spent all morning looking for the post I wanted but still haven't found it. On my way I found this gem that I remember for 2014:

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/140130/02.html

"Let me first talk about redefining the concept of a video game platform.
This medium-term goal is not expected to come to full fruition within the time frame of this current calendar year. However, I feel that this is going to play an extremely crucial role in deciding whether dedicated video game platforms can adjust to rapid environmental changes in today’s market and can develop as a sound business.

The traditional definition of a video game platform was closely related to some kind of hardware and it would be no exaggeration to say that platforms were equivalent in meaning to physical devices.

That is to say, we only had device-based relationships with consumers in the past. As we were connected with a single consumer differently on different devices, we had some natural problems."

Nintendo's half-solution to this problem is the NNID, but the real solution to this problem Nintendo is aware of is something like Microsoft's Smart Delivery in combination with the NNID. Regardless of whether I find that quote I was looking for or not, the solution to the problem I am quoting (Smart Delivery + Cloud Saves) will become industry standard within the next gen.

So, while without the quote I can't confirm that Nintendo understands the needed solution (to make software seamlessly transition from one hardware jump to another or to reduce the hardware gaps so as to fully blur the lines and create a unified platform that crosses hardware changes), they have proven to be aware of the problem by mentioning it, and by trying to bring their own solutions to the table.

They can, but it's much more difficult. The higher the gap, the more difficult it is to support older hardware.

I find that the post I linked to earlier explains it well.

You misunderstood the point of my post. I am not saying they need multiplats or ports. I'm showing how a dev, with professional knowledge about game making, explains a problem when a platform becomes too outdated. I posted it to support the idea that, the bigger the gap, the harder it is to support a seamless delivery. It was in answer to your last post.

No flaw in it sorry.

Your word against a proper dev.

Again you missed the point entirely. The dev highlights the importance the hardware gap has on the ability to have games be supported across the two devices.

It's not something I really need to explain to you or support, so I'm being very patient about it. It's patently obvious to be honest with you.

The higher the hardware gap, the harder it is to support the hardware with the same software. So, my post just supports that platitude.

If you want to contradict it until the sun implodes, have fun, but I'm out.