The Switch is not a substitute for an iPhone or Android phone, and I think this perhaps illustrates a problem with how we think about this issue.

Sure, if I have an iPhone or an Android phone, and I don't like the gaming landscape on either of those, I can get a Switch. But the Switch doesn't replace my phone. I can't toss the phone and now carry a Switch with me everywhere. (I also wouldn't want to carry a Switch everywhere; it's nowhere near as portable and doesn't fit in a pocket.)

So is it ok for a company to abuse their market position, if a consumer has the option to buy an additional device made by a competitor, and then have to lug around two devices, since the other device doesn't actually replace all the functionality of the original one? I would say no, it's not ok.