"That's... impressively elitist, and possibly even trollish."
Not at all. It's the basic way human perception works - it adapts and starts to believe a given stimulus is "normal", and puts different ones in the "wrong" category.
Why some foods add a lot of sugar or salt? Do they make it better, or just make people used to them, so they want more of the same, and refuse better food but which no longer they are used to?
I see more and more oversaturated, high-contrats, and oversharpened images, sometimes quite videogamish. They are easier to the eye. Like pop music, Coca-Cola or McDonald's are easier, but not always better.
I've seen young people refuse B/W images and movies because they are not gaudy as the images/movies they are used to. And the internet is very efficient at leveling tastes.
Is this "elitism"? If elitism means not to participate in a marketing-driven race to the bottom and homogenisation, through a knowledge of visual arts, their history and evolution, well, it's welcome.
"two most important criteria for a good photo"
They are criteria for a "pleasing photo" - which may not be a "good" one. Images go far beyond "pleasing" ones. Some photographers creates images from scratch, so they don't really bother about "being in the right place at the right time" - they create the right place and right time too.
And you don't really need to lug around a log of gear - just what is needed for the images you want. But you want control and versatility, not some limited device with some pre-programmed software effects.
"at times, they'll both produce photos worth sharing!"
Sure. Just, the percentages of those times are very different. And still, in important situations (marriages, graduations, etc.) , people still want to see a photographer come with a SLR, not a mobile phone... why?