Wii U had a lot more right than the Switch does, and it still failed. Here's the launch list:
http://www.ign.com/wikis/wii-u/Wii_U_Launch_Games_(US)
Wii U failed for a number of reasons that you are just shrugging off, not because of the lack of features it launced with. Care to discuss vice driveby criticism and the same Nintendo defense you give every thread?
I say this as someone who's been playing Zelda nonstop on the Switch before you throw that card.
What did Wii U have right that the Switch does not? Name 1 thing when comparing the launches.
The Wii U was atrocious in every regard -- from branding, to software, to value proposition. There was literally no compelling reason to own one at launch.
The Switch, on the other hand, has one of the best gaming titles ever and is both a console and a handheld. It will also have the strongest first year of any console in recent memory, possibly ever. The chasm between the two could not be clearer.
There is no shrugging off the Wii U failure. I'm not sure what you mean when you say I shrug it off. It was doomed the second they named it, never mind the rest of the horrors surrounding the thing.
Also, I defend the truth. Not Nintendo. The truth is, Switch is an awesome piece of hardware with some hiccups at launch. The truth is not that Switch is a disaster. GAF is on a (S)witch hunt because many users on this forum desperately want Switch to fail to either 1. justify their purchase of another console or 2. justify their vision of what gaming should be. It's clear as day to anyone that can think critically -- if gaming hardware isn't a perfect graphical powerhouse that meets all technical specifications and if hardware isn't sold at cost once a device is torn asunder, that is unacceptable. Whereas, the reality of the world is quite different.
People are entertained by products with no determination of how much they cost to make every day. For example...one might question why cellular phones are still so expensive when so many iterations of the same components have been packaged together that someone should be able to make a low cost evergreen phone. However, in the end, a person either derives more enjoyment than the price of a device, or less. Cell phones are an absolute main stay of life for basically most humans that participate in civilized society. Gaming is not. However, there is a chance that when you package components in the right way, regardless of those components costs, that a device will enable more enjoyment than the sum of its parts to many users.
The value derived from Wii U was way less than the cost of admission. The value derived from Wii was way more than the cost of the admission. When looked at via this lens, the Switch has a bit more in common with the Wii than with the Wii U. Scratches, online problems, problematic joycons and minimal launch day software be damned. These things aren't what is going to tell the story of Switch if its value proposition is in excess of its price. And when you touch the thing and see what it does and all the nice clean ways it does them, it's absurd to compare value propositions with Wii U and think they are even in the same orbit with each other.
I'm not saying Switch will succeed like Wii. I'm saying it's a damn cool device that shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Wii U.