If they added a better screen, better battery, etc the cost would rise.

It's not an enthusiast device, it's a mass market product that needs to be affordable.

I get why they didn't go with OLED, since they wanted VRR (I think only Legion Go 2 has both, HDR OLED and VRR), though I would prefer fixed frame rate OLED. like in Switch 1 revision, over VRR LCD with lot of smearing that's in current Switch 2.

As for battery - 8000mAh would cost them $5 ($10 at most) more. And that would give 3 hours under full load. So if we're talking about cheeping out, this is the case of it.

One thing may cost $10 more, but it all adds up and the system is already significantly more expensive than Switch 1.

It would be nice to have more battery life or an OLED screen, true, but there were already complaints about the price as is, I can see why they prioritized affordability, especially given people have less disposable income now than they did for most of Switch 1's life.

The only thing that bothers me is the screen. The ghosting was immediately evident. They definitely could of afforded a better screen and kept their price point, not necessarily OLED. I don't think it's a case of mass market price Vs not massively market, but more Nintendo's approach to hardware and settling on what they consider to be "premium enough". They want to make decent buck off the hardware and they design with that in mind in contrast to someone like Sony. 

Still I wouldn't say they cheaped out on the hardware, even the Switch 1 felt pretty well rounded and impressive despite their cutdowns on the chip. It hasn't been since the 3DS/Wii U that I think Nintendo have really been low balling it's audience.

Switch 2 hasn't pushed the boat out in terms of Nvidia's current technical offerings or Fabrication. But they don't need to, they're still ahead of AMDs current offerings. Until Sony returns to the market with UDNA there is no better bang for buck portable system. PC devices simply won't get dedicated ports nor will they have Nvidia's architectural edge.

Or price can stay the same and they would make less profit (which they make) - but that's not Nintendo way, and they need to sell OLED version 2-3 years from now.

I mean, companies exist to make money, they're not a charity.

That's not exclusive to Nintendo, it's how all corporations function.

Actually, and this is quite surprising, given "that's insane" vibe it radiated with when revealed, GPD Win 5 is probably only handheld that is as good of a bang for buck.

Yes, it's $1900+ for cheapest 395 SKU with 32GB of RAM and 2TB NVMe, but you get 4060 level of performance. Yes, it comes at expense of battery life, but another thing that was very odd at first, detachable battery, is in retrospect good design decision, since you can replace it easily on the go, if you buy another one.

But yeah, that's bit out there, more like a prototype of what UDNA might bring to the table at lower wattages.

Sure, though as a customer, I couldn't care less for that part of equation - with my customer goggles on, if Sony can subsidize their hardware heavily, Nintendo can as well.

Sony doesn't subsidize their hardware to be pro-consumer, they do it so they can take more of your money from subscriptions, software, and microtransactions.

They're in it for the money every bit as much as Nintendo.

There is tons of mileage in regards to how companies approach this though. All companies aim to make profit, some are more willing to eat profit margins on hardware and offer a product they envision and fits user expectations.

Nintendo's approach both to software and hardware is in fact unique to them. For example even if a 1st party games sales crawl to a halt, they won't place a heavy discount on it because that is against there Ethos. Meanwhile Sony will sell that game for $30 to push it to more users. Some very successful games offer free DLC, others do not. There is plenty of variance in how corporations approach profit.

Businesses also have underlying personalities.