Yes, I think this is indisputable. HOWEVER, that said, I think there could be a generational perception issue at play here. I would be very curious to see a correlation of age versus preferred photo format - it would come from data responding to two questions: (1) how old are you, and (2) do you value photographs more on paper or seen on an electronic device?
Well, yes.
1- I was born in 1948, a fine vintage year, says I :-)
2- I think that I value both fairly equally. Almost from the every beginning of my photography studies, in the late 60's and early 70's, I saw photography as belonging as much in books than on walls. Wasn't that the main achievement of Fox Talbot's
Pencil of Nature? Disseminating photographs in books, magazines, newspapers, and now in the various electronic formats gives access to whatever the photographs is about (art, news, etc.) to many more people than a single print in a gallery, museum or home. However, the electronic image is more ephemeral, seen in a flash, gone in a flash. So, yes, in the end I prefer a hard copy of the image. All we need to look at a print are open eyes, no electricity, battery, smart phone, or computer needed.
And try this sometime: in a small gathering show a picture of your new baby or whatever on your smartphone, pay attention at the group's dynamics. A little bit later take out a print of the chubby newborn or latest fun thing bandpass that along. You will find that the group will act much differently and animately. Try it.
Now back to dissolving silver in nitric acid to make some film emulsion!