I can't remember which article it was but they raised an interesting point.
The Microsoft Surface is a tablet that tries to be both a tablet/mobile touch device as well as a traditional laptop. As such, it has to compromise in both areas. Better tablet/touch devices can be found and better more powerful/versatile laptops can be found. It has to compromise though in order to be both. A jack of both trades, master of neither. The Surface's critics argue that it's these compromises that hinder it from being a true success.
How comparable is the Switch to this?
The Switch is both a handheld and a home console. However, it is neither the best version of a handheld that it could be nor the best version of a home console that it could be. It has to compromise in both areas in order to be able to be both; a jack of both trades, master of neither.
You could argue that some of Nintendo's best consoles were the ones that were focused; the Gameboy/DS/3DS were purely handheld and were masters in that category. The NES, SNES, N64 were some of the greatest home consoles ever and focused entirely on the home console element. The Wii U was the first attempt at dabbling in hybrid console territory. I'm not sure how well it paid off.
Is the hybrid strategy a successful one? Are there other examples of hybrid strategies that have really worked? Is the Switch a handheld first that can be a home console, or a home console first that can be a handheld?
Regardless, as long as Nintendo pull it of with their games lineup and player community, I have a feeling that'll be the deciding factor in the end.
TLDR: Is the Switch compromising too much by being a hybrid handheld/home console in the way the Surface is by being a hybrid laptop/tablet?