Cannot change a stubborn mind, but by that logic... earth is flat, because it looks like that to me and the sun circles around us not the other way around,

because in the morning it goes up, and down in the evening and I am standing here, not moving.

The glass is half full.

No the glass is half empty.

You're stubborn if you think it's half full, your eyes are seeing it wrong, the science says it's half empty and you can't argue with the science.

Agreed, stubborn minds can't be changed.

Also, false equivalency.  We know factually the earth isn't flat.  In comparison the Switch operates and functions identically to a home console for millions of people.  

I could super glue my Switch to the dock and you know what it changes for me?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  

And to get that home console experience, what extras did I have to buy?  What modification did I have to do?  None and none.  It came out of the box functioning as a home console for those who wanted that experience.  For those who want a portable experience, functions that way out of the box.  Gee, sounds like a hybrid doesn't it?

It kind of looks like calling the Nomad a Switch is the same as calling the NES Zapper or Power Glove a Wii. While there are some similarities, there are also a lot of differences and technological hold-ups. I don't think anyone was buying the Nomad as a hybrid, but rather a handheld form factor of the Mega Drive - it's kind of like the PSP in that way. The Switch, on the otherhand, is a true hybrid console.

My Phone and Tablets operate under dynamic frequency, so whenever connected to mains power (I.E. Docked) the SoC's will operate at a higher frequency if thermal headroom allows for it.

The Switch doesn't "Change" how you play.
The games are for all intents and purposes are the same, they might have slightly better visuals or operate at a slightly higher resolution, but they are the same games with the same defining visual defining feature sets... And will use the same controls. (Joycons which detach.)

Yes.

False.
This is the tablet.

And unlike the Switch actually has a 1080P display.

False. The Switch is designed as a mobile device first and foremost, otherwise you would start making compromises to battery life, weight, size and portability if you started on the opposite side.

Correct. Mobile hardware... Aka. Mobile power optimized SoC, mobile DRAM, mobile power optimized EMMC storage, mobile form factor and building it around features to use it in mobile aka.... Battery and screen. -Is what makes it primarily a mobile device.
In short, Nintendo didn't compromise mobility for it's mobile capabilities, but it did compromise it's fixed-home console capabilities because of it... And not the other way around.


The Playstation 4 and Xbox One weren't designed around mobile hardware and are for all intents and purposes fixed home consoles...
The Chipsets are NOT laptop chipsets, the CPU block in the Playstation 4 and Xbox One is Jaguar which is an evolutionary step from Brazos which is certainly designed for mobile applications (Netbooks) but also fixed devices like Nettops and industrial machines and so forth.

But you are forgetting that these are not off-the-shelf chips like the Switch's mobile Tegra chip... They are semi-custom.

Sony and Microsoft paired them up with desktop-DRAM Aka. DDR3/GDDR5 which isn't mobile/power optimized... And then they spent a few billion transistors on the graphics cores, which are definitely not mobile/power optimized like the Switch... Meaning they had power consumption north of 100W.

The Xbox One and Playstation 4 also didn't feature built in batteries, displays and were large and chunky so couldn't be used in the hand because of thermal and size of components constraints. (Desktop stuff tends to be bulky.)

The Vita TV is a fixed home console as it doesn't include a display and battery for you to take it portably and has a form factor to match. (Boxy and not ergonomic.)
The fact it's limited to the Vita's average game library is more or less a con, rather than a pro.

@Pemalite so what is the WiiU tablet? Is that a short range mobile device? Seems kind of like there is no such thing as a hybrid in your mind and that using hybrid is just marketing speak.

A hybrid is a mixture of two different things, resulting in something that has a little bit of both — like the rare zedonk, a hybrid of a donkey and a zebra.

So PSP Go is a hybrid when someone connects it to his home theater and plays games with a DualShock 3?

A tablet or smartphone is a hybrid if someone connects it to his home theater and plays with wireless gamepads?

I do not agree that this is a dedicated gaming device. Doing so would not be following the definition of the word dedicated. Dedicated devices are devices whose sole purpose was for one specific function. This is a device that sells itself by being aimed at those who want a tablet and want to game, not those who just want to game. It has multifunctionality absolutely, but adding a controller to a phone or tablet does not make it "dedicated" anymore than allowing a TV to be controlled by a PS3 controller (as some Sony TV's used to be able to) makes it a dedicated gaming console. 

For this point, suggesting it was designed as a mobile device first and foremost goes against everything Nintendo has actually said about the product and its development. In this sense, unless you have outside knowledge about Nintendo that no one else knows, I think Nintendo understands their product more than you. In addition, suggesting that the inclusion of mobile hardware causes the console to be a mobile console is a fallacy of composition. I will return to this topic later. 

The Jaguar architecture was built specifically for low powered mobile units. The "industrial machines" application are for micro-servers. Which, as the nomenclature suggests, are very small and use low power draw. Also, Nintendo used a stock chip to garner more third party support. 

My whole point on variants is that one variants difference in priority doesn't affect the unit as a whole. Just like you consider the Vita TV to be a fixed home console, the Switch Lite IS a portable console. Yet the Vita TV being a fixed home console does not affect the Vita being a mobile gaming device. Similarly, the existence of a Switch Lite is not an argument for why the Switch is only a portable game console. In addition, you have now strayed from your point that mobile hardware constitutes a mobile gaming device. 

To start, a "dockable only Switch" WOULD BE the equivalent of a Vita TV, which is what I was alluding to. Secondly, this again defeats your argument about the Switch Lite. You cannot agree that a Switch-TV would be a fixed-home console, yet point to the Switch Lite as proof that the Switch is a portable console. It just does not work. Also, at this point it is clear that the only consistency between your argument that the Switch is a portable device is that it has a screen and it has a battery. In this sense, NO device can ever be hybrid, as to have the portable aspect you would have to have a screen and a battery, correct? At this point, I think that your definition is flawed. I'm purposefully ignoring ergonomics, as I don't think that is worth discussing. If I created a portable console, but it was spiky and awful to hold, that wouldn't discount it from being a portable console. It would just be a crappy one. Ergonomics are only a qualifier for comfortability, and nothing else. 

If I destroyed the disk drive in my PS4 Pro it wouldn't cause all PS4 Pro's to be classified as download only consoles. The feature is obviously key to why it's suggested it is a hybrid, along with detachable controllers, the bulkiness of the device, the boosted clocks it gets when docked, etc. The *intention* for the regular Switch unit is not aimed at just portable play. This is where the corporation communication actually is important. The intention of the device is made up by the company. How it is used by consumers may be different (which, in this case, it really isn't much different at all), but Nintendo is the one who decides what the intention is of the device.

The debate in this thread is a bit futile, in my opinion. The way I see it, this is all very simple: if a console is designed to be played only in the go, it's accurate to call it 'portable'; if it's designed to be played only at home, it's accurate to call it 'home console'; if it's designed to be played both at home and in the go, it's accurate to call it 'hybrid'. So to me, for example, Switch Lite is a portable version of a hybrid console. However, if someone else wants to call the standard Switch 'portable' or 'home console', and has reasons to do so, then why not? The point of a device needing to meet a lot of very specific requirements just to be considered a hybrid sounds a bit far-fetched to me, but just plainly saying that it is a portable device because it has portable tech is (in my book) a more than valid reason to consider it portable. In the end, this is all just semantics: different people understand the same reality in different ways, so they may give it different names.

On topic, almost nothing is actually innovative or revolutionary, and that applies to Switch too: everything it does was already done to an extent before, so it's entirely possible that its hybridism (or whatever name it gets) took some inspiration from the Nomad or any other device existing before or after the Nomad.

The Tablet doesn't do any localized processing, it streams data from a fixed home console.
It is no different in concept than using remote play on my Xbox to stream Xbox games to my phone, tablet, laptop or PC.

Correct, the definition of a Hybrid is to combine elements of two different things. - But that isn't the Switch. - Video output from mobile devices via docks/HDMI cables has been a thing for literally decades.

It is absolutely a dedicated gaming device. - Clearly you haven't owned one.
This device is aimed at those who wish to play Android powered games and emulators and it's feature set is built entirely around it.

It even had it's own gaming store.

Nintendo has said allot of stuff. Do you place so much faith in multi-billion dollar companies that you always take their word as gospel?

Remember when Microsoft said that there wouldn't be a remastered Halo 2?
Remember when Sony said that the Vita would be equivalent to the PS3 in terms of visuals?
Remember when Nintendo said that the Nintendo DS would be a "3rd pillar" in their gaming lineup to augment Gamecube and Gameboy Advance and so forth? It replaced gameboy entirely.

Perhaps instead of trying a dogmatic approach to try and undermine myself using "logical fallacies" you should probably think a little more pragmatically.

Not to mention the fallacy of composition is when someone implies that something is true, based on only a small part/aspect. - Which my entire argument is certainly not about... You might need to study up on your fallacies...

Because it is in fact yourself that is using the fallacy of composition where you are taking a single feature (Aka. The small part/aspect - The video output to a display) and asserting that it's a Hybrid (Aka. Implying that is true.).

Wrong. Industrial machines are console devices, not micro-servers.
Signage and so forth fall into that category.

This is my argument in a nutshell, thanks for agreeing with me.

You are correct that different variants can be defined differently... Which I have actually done.

I judge each device on it's individual merits.

The Switch lite is a portable console, that it's primary function, design.
The Switch is a portable console with video output functionality, that's it's primary function, design.
The Vita is a portable console, the Vita TV is a home console, that is their primary function and design.

And when I talk about "mobile hardware" I am not just talking about the SoC inside the device, I am talking about every single physical component right down to the buttons. Aka. Hardware. (Which itself is a general term.)