I wold disagree with you first point. Although, to be fair, I don't really know the profit margins of the current Switch model, I think it's safe to say that the tech of the Gamecube was far more substantial in the year 2003 than the tech inside the Switch is in 2021. After all, even in 2017, the Switch was basically a last generation machine under the hood. Remember, when Gamecube came out, it was far more powerful than PS2 and in some ways, even more powerful the original Xbox which was so far ahead of its time, that Microsoft never turned a dime.

Switch is actually pretty substantial tech for when it came out; the Tegra X1 was a cutting edge mobile chip when it came out in 2015, and remained one of the best available at the time Switch was put together.

Gamecube was amazing tech for its time, true, but because of the time it takes between when a console's hardware is designed and when it hits shelves, its core technology too was a couple of years old by the time in landed in people's homes. 

Switch is pretty much on par with Gamecube in terms of how up to date its hardware was for its time.

I don't see how. The Gamecube was pretty much the most powerful console on the planet when it came out. The Switch was a gen behind. I could see the form-factor argument, but still. How much could that have played into the overhead? By the time Switch came out, even its screen tech was ancient.

Regardless, it would be interesting to get the raw data here and see exactly what the profit margins were (are) between the two. 

Gamecube was a modern and powerful console when it came out, and Switch was a modern and powerful mobile system when it came out.

Switch also wasn't really a "gen behind" as it's still significantly more capable than the 7th gen platforms.

Relative to its predecessor (N64) and its direct competition (PS2 and Xbox), the Gamecube was ridiculously more powerful than the Switch. And when I say ridiculously, I'm doing the best I can, because there isn't an adjective worthy enough. 

But again, we're getting off topic. The Switch has gone four years in the US without a single price cut. I can't imagine how much they're making off that thing compared to when it launched. Does anyone have those numbers? Would be really interesting to find out.

Relative to its predecessor (N64) and its direct competition (PS2 and Xbox), the Gamecube was ridiculously more powerful than the Switch. And when I say ridiculously, I'm doing the best I can, because there isn't an adjective worthy enough. 

But again, we're getting off topic. The Switch has gone four years in the US without a single price cut. I can't imagine how much they're making off that thing compared to when it launched. Does anyone have those numbers? Would be really interesting to find out.

Relative to its predecessor the 3DS and to other mobile devices Switch was also capable for its time. It's not really apples to apples to compare a mobile device to dedicated consoles. You have to take the sort of machine it is into account.

As for its price in the US, I mean, why would they cut the price when it's still selling like it is? People are clearly quite happy paying $300 for one.

I found this on the Nintendo Switch wikipedia article. It was estimated that one Switch production cost was at $257 at launch. Kimishima back then said that thry may be able to see further profitability through volume discounts when they reach around 10M units. So their profit margin is now obviously huge.

Gotta be honest here. I kinda miss when there were two separate Nintendo platforms. You knew that when you bought both, you were (for the most part) getting two entirely different things. Different UI. Different apps. Different games etc. It was fun. 

Remember, when Gamecube came out, it was far more powerful than PS2 and in some ways, even more powerful the original Xbox which was so far ahead of its time, that Microsoft never turned a dime.