I went ahead and fixed that for you, Ian.
I know you couldn't really be talking about Nintendo, because after all they are the most successful video gaming company of this generation with the highest market share.
I don't subscribe to the theory that if one is in a favourable situation that every decision they've made up to the point was correct. Or vice versa. Nintendo has always thought about themselves and the botton line for the next quarter with all else taking a backseat.
Sony thinks enough about the future that they over-extended themselves this gen and that's why the PS3 was so damn expensive. They were thinking about HD. They were thinking about how they wanted Blu-Ray to become the HD standard and how they needed a console that could make use of these new TV standards. The timing was kind of the shits for both Sony and MS in that they felt they needed to make consoles that complimented HDTVs, which makes a lot of sense in today's market, but that was going to price things too high at the time.
Sony went from first to LAST and yet their third party support has remained strong and virtually unaffected. Nintendo somehow has managed to be the first ever market leader to have by far the WORST third party support of their generation. If you're going to use end results to determine who knows what they're doing, that result suggests that Nintendo ain't exactly without flaw. I highly doubt this was part of the plan.
I see the theory of how Nintendo and Google could compliment each other but I think that their different approaches would clash. What if Nintendo wouldn't want to spend extra time or money for something that won't matter in the here and now while Google did? I think Nintendo more or less HAS to work largely alone, unless they really change their attitude. They seem too stubborn to work well with others at this level.