Did you read the article I linked? The reason Nintendo makes their money from genre innovation, is that Microsoft and Sony have the resources to invest to make money from polished "genre king" titles--and so Nintendo, necessarily, must take the segment of the market they ignore. They do this by figuring out ways to make games cheaply that nevertheless have the potential for a strong reaction from the market--and this basically necessitates genre innovation. (Or remakes/ports, which Nintendo is also quite familiar with.)
I did read the article, but these points don't hit the core of why Nintendo is successful, when it's successful. It's true that Nintendo tries to make games cheaper than many AAA game companies, though with the ballooning cost of AAA game development that's not saying much. It's true that it's often in new genres. And it's very true that they focused on a different, broader market than Microsoft and Sony back in the Wii's heyday. What I'm saying is that innovation alone is not enough to create success. It must be pointed in the right direction. At times they've gotten this right, at other times they haven't.
It's nonsense to imply that Nintendo games aren't polished, or that third-party AAA game developers will necessarily dominate any genre that they choose to develop for. I can't think of a 2D platformer that has ever done as well as Mario, and 2D platformers are one of gaming's oldest genres -- certainly a "mature genre".
That article was written back in 2005, just after the Wii Remote was announced, when people were still speculating about that strange new controller and what it could mean. We have the benefit of hindsight now, and the best way to understand what was going on then is to take it straight from the horse's mouth, looking back at the early days of the Wii, when Nintendo talked openly about their business strategy. Back then, they outright said that they based their new strategy on the books The Innovator's Dilemma and The Blue Ocean Strategy. (They talked about this in their shareholder meetings, which were available online but which I unfortunately can no longer find.) These books give us a framework for understanding what they were doing then -- no need to create ungainly terms like "genre king". The books talk about conceiving of the market as the "core" -- which were the people who were actively playing and buying games at the time, and which were the target market of their competitors -- and the "expanded audience" -- which were those who weren't playing games, or who used to play but had since stopped. The latter is who Nintendo chose to focus on back then. Innovation did play a part in that, but it doesn't explain it entirely: some games were innovative and succeeded, (ex. Wii Sports), some were innovative and failed, (ex. Wii Music, remember that one?) and some were not innovative but still managed to differentiate themselves by appealing to the expanded audience (ex. New Super Mario Bros.). To lump the latter category of games, which were new entries in genres with long and storied histories, together with games that were in completely new genres, is contradictory.
New Super Mario Bros., for one, effectively used none of the hardware features of the Wii to its advantage, and was still one of the strongest-selling games of the generation. Its success is attributable not to innovation but to being a game that many people, especially the expanded audience, wanted to play. It's as simple as that.
