Last time I checked, my NES cartridges didn't fit into my SNES or N64, either. Not every system is reverse compatible, and the Wii isn't the only one with those issues. The PS3 won't take PS games and Microsoft had to do a remake of Halo to get it to work on the 360. (Yeah, you'd have to buy it again)
I never said the past Nintendo system needed to be backwards compatible, but it doesn't make much sense to use a lack of full backwards compatibility as an argument against the OTHER SYSTEMS when the wii doesn't have it, either. Also, PS games DO play on the PS3. While Sony did make a decision to drop the hardware needed to run PS2 games on the newer models of the PS3, all models can still play games from the original playstation. As for Halo on the 360, last time I checked, it ran fine without having to buy it again.
Those are both considrably easier to fix that a hardware breakdown and are easy to fix with as simple a move as a patch on a game disk. They're just using the same concept as Windows XP: Rather than constantly come out with new versions, just constantly update the old one.
One of the advantages of console gaming over PC gaming up until this generation was that software had to be complete out of the box. Developers had to do extensive play testing to make sure everything worked and you knew which features the system would have when you bought it. Becoming more like Windows is definitely not a good thing. It also excuses developers for not making deadlines and allows manufacturers some time so they can rush a product to market that isn't complete.
I think I recall you giving your opinion on the Gamecube controller, too, and I actually liked its design because all the buttons didn't look the same.
Considering I'm not staring at the controller when I play, the look of it is secondary to the feel. The gamecube controller is probably the best one they've released since the SNES controller, but is still weaker than the competition because of the odd placement of the buttons. It doesn't matter to me that the buttons on the Xbox or PS controller look the same, I never have any problems telling them apart.
With the wii controller, we take a step back to the N64's "three-handed" approach and in the modern age, that is totally unacceptable. Overall, the nunchuck/wii-mote combo has two fewer buttons than competing controllers. In addition, in that configuration, you are limited to four button access most of the time. Developers wanting more robust controls HAVE to utilize the motion controls to substitute for button presses, which also unfortunately kills the second analog stick (pointer device) during use since you can't wave the controller around and point at the screen at the same time. What you end up with is actually a controller that in practice is LESS versatile than even the gamecube controller. It is unfortunate because the controller COULD have been much more versatile had Nintendo just spent a little more time on R&D. It's not like they don't have the resources, but with their PR practices, I really get the impression that someone over there sees some article in Popular Science, says "hey that looks neat, and it's cheap, put it in a system, you have six months" and then a year later the wii hits the shelves. It doesn't help that Nintendo themselves don't seem to even consider what applications the technology might have or how it would impact gaming. Hell, in their initial hype of the system, they were even suggesting applications that developers have routinely found simply don't work with the final design of the system.