If you design a product to be intentionally difficult to repair, using subpar parts, is it not planned obsolescence? I really don’t get what you are about there. Unless you require some sort of an internal clock to force brick the device to be considered planned?

Everything else is correct and I agree.

What it reeks of is Nintendo wanting to make things cheap and sell you multiple of them

That’s the “apple like” planned obsolesence part I was refering to. Think about airpods for example.

The teardown doesn’t touch on part serialization, although the ability to brick your device if they “feel like it” is on PAR with Apple.

Although I’m not sure we should be arguing about which of the two is shittier when both are already deep in non compliance of “modern right to repair regulations (lmao)”

The switch 2 gives out complete apple vibes. It’s repairability is pretty horrid after watching the teardown guide.

Controllers will fail sooner or later and will have to be replaced. Here it will end up replacing the whole stick just due to glueing small parts of the controller.

Battery will also fail sooner than later. The whole thing yells planned absolesence…