I don't know that Nintendo was forcing the issue for profit. I also don't know the costs and margins (if any) for Nintendo or who they were working with to get the storage, to be fair. But I have to assume that if Nintendo had signficantly cheaper access to storage and was artificially throttling to everybody else you'd have seen more first party games on larger carts, and that wasn't necessarily the case.
Regardless, any solid state storage was always going to be more expensive than optical storage and scale up with size gradually in a way that optical storage doesn't (until you have to go to a second disk or an additional layer, at least). Cartridges are just inherently riskier and more expensive, even at the relatively modest spec of the Switch 1. Definitely with what seems like competitive speeds in Switch 2.
That doesn't mean one has to like the consequences of it. At the same time I'm not sure I can imagine a realistic alternative for a portable. We're not doing UMD again, so...
Yeah, for sure. That I was aware of.
We were focusing on the Mini instead because... well, if the OP is fretting about going for a big GPU I'm assuming we're talking user-level costs here. The Mini's reputation comes from starting at 600 bucks for 16 gigs of fast shared RAM, which is competitive with consumer GPUs as a standalone system. I wanted to correct the record about the 24Gig starter speccing up to 64 because the 64 gig one is still in the 2K range, which is lower than the realistic market prices of 4090s and 5090s, so if my priority was running LLMs there would be some thinking to do about which option makes most sense in the 500-2K price range.
I am much less aware of larger options and their relative cost to performance because... well, I may not hate LLMs as much as is popular around the Internet, but I'm no roaming cryptobro, either, and I assume neither is anybody else in this conversation.