The question itself doesn't make sense, due to numerous reasons that should be taken into account, but let's say that for example Sega would have come out with Wii and with similar business strategy (Sega, as a company that knows how to make software as well as hardware), it would be as successful as it is now.

It was also funny how you put the title, since considering Nintendos previous consoles names, we actually have Wii without Nintendo (and this is a part of the strategy).

The iPhone targets the person who doesn't want an iPhone?  I don't think so.  There is no forcing involved either.

 I think what you are trying to say is that the iPhone is the upmarket version of the iPod, which I would agree with now that I think about it.

On Topic: 

I agree with bdbdbd, a company with the right resources, and the correct business strategy (disruption in this case), would have been able to mimic the Wii's success had Nintendo not existed or went another route.  So yes, disruption is a sound business strategy, and that is really the core of what you are asking, Mr. Bubbles.

Sony or Microsoft. I'd imagine would be about as successful.

Then again I'm not sure what games Sony has had out that on the Wii would of pushed sales like Nintendo first party games.

Then again most of Sony's games have been built on making them look pretty so "wii versions would of been different."

Apple. No. They wouldn't have the games.

You know condemed would of RULED with motion controls.  Would of upped the creepyness factor even with worse graphics i'd think.  Cause you'd be literally bashing in heads.

It would take a company equally dedicated to raw quality of hardware and software to devise a success like that of the Wii. Sony falls short in raw quality of software (theirs tend to focus on specific demographics and lack the polish in controls found in most Nintendo games), Microsoft in raw quality of hardware (see the 360's many issues), and Apple practically doesn't do software of the kind that a video game console does.

As it stands, the only company whose focus is consistently to produce affordable, differentiated hardware and widely-appealing, fluidly controllable software is Nintendo. For any of the other big players to be able to pull off the Wii, they would have had to re-mold their processes to basically mirror Nintendo's. That's not to say that they couldn't, but none of them could have pulled it off as they stand now (or as they stood when the Wii was in development, even).

The Wii without Nintendo would be called Pee or Meh one of the two.

If Sony or Microsoft either one have the imagination to make such changes, they have kept it well hidden. Their idea of innovation is to throw more and more hardware at the problem and still end up with the same old crap that made people receptive to a new approach, only at higher resolution.

Nintendo put a lot of work into the Wii with

1. Research
2. Dev & Testing
3. Getting Wii Sports - arguably the best demo ever created in place
4. Advertising it in unique ways that included roadshows etc
5. Following it up with strong software titles to ensure that it would remain selling whilst third parties came round.

Basically No - I cannot see any other company putting that much into the Wii to make sure it got off the ground. Even in this gen was a time that all of the competiton were floundering in the grey areas of backwards compatibility Nintendo dusted off their back catalogue and gave it a second life with Virtual Console.

The Wii without Nintendo?

There would be no Wii at all.

The Wii without Nintendo?

There would be no Wii at all.