One is a home console and the other is a hybrid handheld?
Both are home consoles.
I really don't see the point of this distinction here. It's still being marketed as a home console with the added benefit of portable play, not the other way around. It's the price of a home console, and the games you buy for it are home console prices. The games themselves, such as 3D Zelda and Splatoon, are historically home console games.
So it's got the price, the games, and the functionality of a home console, and is no doubt competing with the PS4 for Japanese wallets. It just has an additional function that gives it a unique niche between other consoles in that you can bring it around with you. Like, would you not compare the PS2 to the GameCube because the former was also a DVD player?
And like it's been said, there's some serious revisionism going on in this thread. The success of the Switch was certainly far from a certain conclusion, especially on forums like this one following the show in January. If my math is right, a little over half of the members that took the poll in that thread expected a GameCube level of success at best (~44% if you take the theme park option as a joke only). Nothing was "obvious", especially considering the price, launch games, and the marketing direction as a home console.
At the price it has, it's still racing to keep within distance of the 3DS post launch, while staying above the original launch price of the latter with more expensive games.
Nintendo went with an idea that it felt would appeal to both Western and Japanese interests, and clearly succeeded. Sony has so far failed to curry the same fervor in the Japanese market, but that's ok. Their western sales more than make up for it. So there's no need for the narrative that because the Switch can be a portable it was destined to succeed in a market where mobile phone games have long been portended to signal the doom of portable consoles.
Just as an aside, the GAF use of the word 'revisionist' is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen on the internet. It's a word usually used to refer to changes in political doctrines (sometimes religious too). It's just funny that it's used so much in video game culture when in a modern context it's a word associated almost exclusively with far left politics.
Really? I don't find it that strange, especially since revisionism is also a relatively common term in the field of history, where revisionism can be a (not necessarily fairly) negatively label applied to people attempting to distort views of the past. Which would work here.