Tatra

"...now that Nintendo's next console has been confirmed to be backwards compatible, it's all but confirmed to indeed be a Switch 2... This would be a significant departure for Nintendo, since the developer is known for trying to innovate with each console..."

So, I find this a bit confusing, may be misunderstanding.

These lines, and the article as a whole, suggest that

1) if this is backwards compatible (BC), it must be a Switch 2,

2) If it is a Switch 2, they mustn't be trying to innovate, and

3) Nintendo are known for innovating with with every console.

Where this confuses me is that, if we look at Nintendo's history, it's absolutely jammed with BC systems, and a fair number of "sequel" consoles, with a decent amount of crossover. Let's go through it:

The Gameboy Colour was a sequel to the Gameboy, and BC.

The SNES was, IMO, a sequel to the NES (they literally gave it the same name with "Super" at the start).

The GBA was BC with the GB/GBC, and arguably a sequel system.

The Wii was BC with the Gamecube, and I'd argue a sequel to it.

The DS was BC with the GBA.

The Wii U was sequel to the Wii, and BC with it

The DSi was BC with, and depending on you definitions a sequel to, the DS.

The DS was definitely a sequel to, and BC with, the DS/DSi.

The 3DS was a sequel to, and BC with, the DS.

If the idea is indeed that a sequel/BC console can't be innovative, then Nintendo has only released 3 potentially-innovative mainline consoles since the original NES and Gameboy: the N64, Gamecube, and Switch. That would hardly be enough to make them "known for being innovative with each console". Either they aren't known for that, are known for that wrongly... Or they commonly manage to make consoles that are both BC and innovative, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't/couldn't do likewise with the Switch 2.