Hasn't photography always been inextricably associated with gear? You can't take a photograph without the gear.
The issue of the type and quality of gear should always relate to the type of shots the photographer is interested in, and usually takes.
If one is interested in birds, of the feathered variety, then an iPhone is not going to pass muster, at least most of the time, although it might be adequate in a zoo where you can stick your hand through the cage wiring and take a shot of a large Emu that is very close.
If one is interested in photographing birds of the Homo Sapiens variety, and plates of food on the dining table, and sharing such images with other iPhone users, then an iPhone might be perfectly adequate for the task.
The problem of the fascination with camera gear, that some people exhibit, is a part of the general fascination with so many products, such as stylish clothing, and cars, and housing. We tend not to buy such products for their utility purposes, but to satisfy our vanity and ego.
I agree with much of your analysis, but would go just a little step sideways: my first remembered contact with photography was not images made, but photographs of cameras in American magazine adverts. I found something beautiful in the build of those Leicas advertised during the early 50s. Also, Canon and Nikon ran ads, and I can recall wondering what f1 or f0,9 or whatever meant, but that it was very beautiful. I really had no idea, yet it all sounded so clever and impressive. I also knew an Indian gentleman who owned a tiny Minox and that, too, was an exciting camera to see. My own? I had some sort of Brownie reflex working on 127. I remember being stunned, one day in Bombay, walking into a camera shop and discovering the price of tripods. I had never suspected. How wonderful the world of the child, where cost doesn't register. Perhaps that means that the desire to become rich is a degeneration, a desire to return to childhood's freedoms? I'd risk it today!
So I do differ a bit from your view of thinking that things such as pretty cameras and cars are necessarily about ego and vanity; a child has not developed those emotions very far, I suspect, but an appreciation of intrinsic beauty may well exist from the beginning of life. Why else would one love, be besotted by boobs?
Why else would I love the fins of the '59 Coupe de Ville, I sometimes ask myself, and the bumpers of the earlier '56 more than of the '59? Why do I still believe that my Nikon F was a better-looking camera than those that were to follow, even though in reality, the F2 was far more comfortable to hold for hours on end simply because of the softened edges? Why do I still respect my wet printing but hardly at all my digital, which can allow (well, could when my printer worked) far more accuracy? I think I believe that it's all an instinctive thing, a natural appreciation of what's just, well, right. (Don't confuse right with morality!) With regards to the prints: accuracy isn't the same as beauty; it can take time to realise that. I've known some pretty silly pretty girls and some dumb pretty boys, too, though far fewer of the latter: how can you tell when a boy is pretty?
So many problems, so few solutions; so many solutions to problems I don't have.
Rob