What a load of bullshit. It could sell 3ds numbers and still be a massive success. Software sales and profit margin on hardware units equal profit, not just raw sales numbers.
It's obviously more complicated than just hardware numbers, but I think it's a convenient, simple measurement. The GameCube was break-even hardware in spite of it's low price, and it's software sales were fantastic, and yet Satoru Iwata called out GameCube's 22 million
hardware number as a failure that called for leaving the industry.
And then WiiU essentially Dreamcasted itself with it's 13 million hardware sales, so it's no surprise that Nintendo has essentially abandoned their home console pillar.
At the same time, Nintendo's bread-and-butter handheld pillar dropped from a record high 150 million with the DS to a record low 60 million for the 3DS. The handheld pillar is not "a failure" but it is in trouble, and that trajectory is very bad.
Nintendo has seemingly grafted the remains of their useless home console pillar onto their handheld pillar for support. Switch is a typically-underpowered Nintendo console with a gimmick, and that gimmick is that it's a handheld. Switch is a high-powered Nintendo handheld, now with the full support of Nintendo's undivided attention. Switch could be more than the sum of it's parts, or it could be less than the sum of it's parts. So it's reasonable to judge the success of this grafting by comparing it to 3DS + WiiU. If it shows improvement, that's good. It means Nintendo's plan to turn things around was a good idea and it's working. If Switch sells less than Nintendo's worst-selling handheld + Nintendo's worst-selling home console combined (or heaven forbid, sets a new low-water mark for Nintendo handhelds), then that's obviously bad. It's not "leave the industry" bad, but I don't think that level of failure should seriously have been considered.