I'll repeat it for the deaf ones at the back of the room - Ive not only owned an EV for 8 years now, I have money invested in two EV startups, Edison Motors (because its a hybrid truck) and Aptera (because its solar powered). Im a past member of my local EV Owners Club and I've been following EVs since I first spotted a Citicar in 1978, so the only part of your comment that is correct is that Im older and much wiser than you.

The problem with your analogy with mobile phones is that when the smartphone came along, it was EXPONENTIALLY superior to anything that preceded it. Not only could it be a phone but its a handheld computer, wallet, GPS, text, camera, video, it can start your car, run your entire smart home... just about any electronic application can be applied. That beats a Nokia dumb phone by miles which is why everyone has one.

Thats definitely NOT true of EVs. They do some things better - like lower maintenance costs and have more torque and less noise. But they also do somethings worse - like much longer 'refueling' for road trips and they are almost impossible to repair by owners, they lose considerable range in the cold and they are more expensive to buy. Which is why they will remain a niche product. Because some people will find them more useful but obviously a lot of people don't.

There are some things that more money will solve, like charging infrastructure, but there are some physics problems that EVs will never solve - like how its impossible to put the same amount of energy into an EV that you have in the size of a gas tank of an ICE car. The little 10 gallon tank in an gas Fiat 500 will take you 500 kms. The Fiat 500 EV with a battery only goes 220 km using up MUCH more room for its battery and it weighs 500 pounds more. Poorer physics is impossible to market as 'superior'.