If you think of personal Cameras as cheap P&S I agree. But the quality of smartphone pics is very limited in many situations due to plain physics (no optical zoom, tiny sensor, simple lens construction....)
Just the amount of usage on instagram and facebook does negate that fact.
Why on earth would anyone (tourist, reporter, professional photographer, paparazzi...) want to increase the weight and size of their gear to use a tech that is
a) much slower
b) needs more power
c) much less reliable
When the current tech is affordable, fast, easy to get almost anywhere?
WLAN is mostly used for remote controling the camera, picture transfer is a bonus for some situations but if you take into account that every pic takes at least 1-2 seconds to transfer this "bonus" isn't something people use while shooting but afterwards to get some pics on a tablet for review or uploading (and even that is faster and easyer with an sd-card slot)
Just because those pics are "good enough" for you, does not mean that they are for the majority. Again, if you only use them for acebook and stuff like tgat you may be fine, but try to tell a bride that there won't be a real photographer because everyone has a smartphone with a cam that is good enough....you'll be in a world of pain...and/or out of that relationship.
My whole point being that while smartphone cams are a nice compromise for taking pics with a device that you have with you anyway, they are far from being able to deliver the quality that most people like to hang on their walls or have as memorys for anything more special then what the waiter just put on the table...