Have you tested the Spook2 remote effectiveness?
If not, then I'd say your objection won't likely ever be significant until verified.
Along these same lines, has anyone tested your device against the Spooky2 in terms of accuracy? And more importantly, has this been shown to be significant?
ie, it appears as though a great number of people are under the impression that pathogens and organisms are bound to given frequency steps or measures as though there is some unwritten law that governs them. When in truth no such thing exists in nature. IOW. the frequencies we discover and compile a entirely for our own standards. And so the argument that a particular Zapper is somehow better than another based on the precision of a given frequency can easily become nothing more than a strawman.
However, if you feel such claims warrant superiority beyond that of technical bragging right, I'd invite you to put up the research to show this to be the case. Otherwise, I can't see such claims proving to anything more than intellectual points without any real world merit.
As for the portability I agree on the benefits.
Though I'm no sooner convinced that it's worth the 300 extra dollars to get there when I find myself spending so many hours in front of my computer in a daily basis. And so for me this isn't likely going to justify the added expenses. Though I'm sure this could vary for other people.