95% of the time you're happy you just have your scooter with you, but the other five percent of the time, you may be disappointed or downright helpless compared to somebody with better equipment. Say you and your friends decide impromptu to go to a music show twenty miles away, the concert starts in two hours, and public transit will get you there at approximately noon tomorrow. Your scooter is useless, and you have to ask for a ride. This is analogous to when you see a coyote in your neighborhood (let's assume that's a rare and interesting occurrence in your neighborhood) and you're pointing to a blurry dog-shaped dot on your phone saying "Look! It's a coyote!" and your neighbor is ordering a 2' by 3' print showing the reflections in its eyes and the steamy breath coming out of its mouth. Situations like that are frustrating, but each person will feel differently about whether it's worth embracing the expense and daily hassle of traveling with a bigger piece of equipment.
Your point makes sense when the full functionality of the phone is taken into account. I was viewing the argument as phone camera vs dedicated camera.
There's a whole other rabbit hole when you get into the discussion of whether the camera or the lens is the primary driver of good photography.
As I see it, the phone is a general-purpose device that also takes pictures, just as a sedan is a general-purpose vehicle, whether luxurious or not. Whereas, a camera just does one thing (two if you count video separately.)
Thus, to me, a dedicated camera at any price is like a two-seater sports car with hardly any trunk room. You can buy cheaper sports cars, sure, but they still lack the affordances of a sedan.
To me, a “luxury sedan” corresponds to a high-end phone.
—
That being said, all metaphors/similes are leaky, so you are probably “not wrong.”