That's self-evidently false. Here are two reasons why, out of presumably many:

Long-term renters make up-front commitments. They are "buying in bulk", which reduces the inventory risk for the landlord. A hotelier, on the other hand, has to set prices to account for vacancy rates, and for the risk that their vacancy rate estimation is going to be wrong.

Long-term renters are self-serve customers. Short-term renters depart after a few days, leaving the room they leased uninhabitable. Not only does it cost money to reset and restock a room after a guest leaves, but to do so involves retaining staff, which introduces all the expense of headcount.

All of that is true and is why an AirBnb costs more than renting an apartment. However, the cost difference between an AirBnb and a comparable hotel room is all regulation.

Without the regulation, it would be unprofitable to sublease a single apartment on AirBnb as you'd be unable to compete with people who can run a whole building at scale with dedicated maid service etc.

No, you've oversimplified again. Many whole-home Airbnb rentals --- most, if the narrative of the site is to believed --- are owner-occupied. They don't have the inventory risk problem. A hotel is an investment that must make some minimum return, or else go out of business.

I had the impression that most AirBnbs in NYC were not owner-occupied but full-time AirBnbs and that's what people were complaining about.

Anyways if you improve the legal alternatives and the margins get low enough I think a lot of the owner-occupied ones will simply give up. Right now it's so insanely profitable that it's well worth the work and inconveniences (and legal risk!) even for middle class people.

"The product (a place to sleep) is the same"

The product is not the same its "a place to sleep" vs "a place to live" and they are very very different.