I would say we both worked for an hour, so we both get half of the revenue. You want three quarters of the revenue because you made three quarters of the the widgets?
I of course understand that we would want something like that in practice as an incentive, otherwise I could be very lazy and make you do all the work. But let us forget about practical aspects, let us assume we both work to the best of our abilities, we can not find a more productive replacement for me, and so on. We are also not competing, you could of course offer your widgets cheaper than me and put me out of business.
Why do you think it would be more natural or better that we get compensate based on the amount of widgets each of us produced instead of what it cost each of us to produce them, an hour of work?
Long story short, the price should equal the costs of production, that is the goal. Any deviation from that just exists as a signaling mechanism to steer the system and decide the distribution.
[1] Actually up to the smaller of the value the product provides to them and the money they have available, see also [2].
[2] Note that the available products do not go to the consumers valuing the products the most, they go the consumers capable to pay the highest price. With enough money I could buy up all the heart surgeries because I like collecting them and deprive everyone else of heart surgeries even though they actually need them and value them much higher than me but just do not have the necessary money to outcompete me.
And you would be incorrect that this is natural. If two monkeys are gathering bananas and one is faster or cleverer than the other, why would it be natural that they end up with the same amount of bananas? Yes, it's still an hour of your life, but some people use their hours better than others and get more done with them.