Yes, like LLMs, they will over-promise in the beginning. But it still make sense to pursue that form factor from an investment perspective if we think it's feasible.
Back on the ground, I guess it's possible that some general purpose non-humanoid robot will be able to use our tools and built environment better than people, but I have a hard time imagining what that would be.
Just look at the animal kingdom, there are a bunch of stuff that would be extremely useful, tails, extra limbs, extra joints, no separated head, longer limbs &c.
Some of your listed features could still work though. A humanoid robot doesn't have to have exactly the same form as humans, as long as it's close enough to use our stuff, ride around in our vehicles, etc. The alternative is to build all new infrastructure and tools that don't work for humans; I'm not sure why we would want that.
The point is I don't need a general purpose robot of any form. I have various specific tasks I need done, I don't care how many robots are involved. I do care that the total is affordable. I do care that the total doesn't take up "too much" space. I do care that the job is done well. I don't want to think about any of it unless I want to think about it (sometimes it is fun to watch my robot vacuum work. Sometimes I want a specific mess cleaned up first and then go away before guests arrive). Maybe a general purpose robot is the best answer, maybe not - since I'm not [currently] designing such robots I expect those who are experts to figure out the best form - which is probably a compromise.
If you have a factory, idle equipment costs you money. Right now our factories have only specialized robots, but they still have lots of people because it's too expensive to do the remaining tasks with specialized robots. We need general-purpose workers for the tasks we're not doing 24 hours every day.
This makes general-purpose robots look like the cheapest option for many tasks, but that could be offset if they cost a lot more. But the more of anything we build, the cheaper the thing ends up being. A very large number of identical robots will probably end up costing less than smaller numbers of lots of special purpose robots.
True, but that isn't the whole story. Where I live most factories have their own snow removal equipment even though it is only used a few days per year and sits idle the rest of the time. While it costs money to have it sit idle, it costs even more to have the whole factory idle until the snow melts. (or the people you hire get around to your factory).
> Right now our factories have only specialized robots, but they still have lots of people because it's too expensive to do the remaining tasks with specialized robots.
And when they decide people are too expensive they replace them not with general purpose robots but more special purpose robots.
> A very large number of identical robots will probably end up costing less than smaller numbers of lots of special purpose robots.
Maybe. It isn't clear. A general purpose robot could be more expensive - I only need one while I "need" one vacuum robot per floor meaning that special purpose robot scales better. And that vacuum robot is also a lot simpler meaning it will be cheaper to own 2 than to have 1 general purpose robot.
The question then is the general purpose robot cheaper because you only have 1 instead of an army of special purpose robots. We do not know (today).
An urbanized, general purpose robot may take an entirely different form factor than bipedal homosapien, ie. tachikomas from Ghost in the Shell: SAC.
A true "general purpose" robot should be able to walk into a space built by humans for humans and perform useful work there. That's the reason why humanoid frames are desirable.
Humans evolved to be bipedal to see over the bushes and tall grass in the savannah. Maybe the optimal form for a robot is an elephant with prehensile trunk, or giraffe, or a frog.
Chicken and egg problem there. Nobody will adapt the environment for your robots unless your robots have proven to work really well. So your robots have to first work really well in unadapted environments.
There are always first adopters who will if it isn't too expensive. Rich people often live in a house with big enough doors (well most doors big enough - enough for this discussion to say they do), and likely have a need (and the money) for something even if it isn't very good. If your robot starts to prove useful people will ask for it - we build thousands of new houses/apartments every year just in the US, if builders see a demand they will make changes to their new models - it doesn't cost that much more so they don't even need a real demand, just a marketing feature that you could even if nobody does will work (for a few years: you better prove it useful to those who buy new houses fast or the fad will pass!)
It isn't easy because as you say, chicken and egg. If these prove useful people will make changes of the next few decades so they can have one. (though of course your competition will be looking to see if they can make something that doesn't need a remodel to use)
Space is practically inaccessible to most people.
It's crazy how many people purposefully become ignorant of the things they see every day with their own eyes.
We've had buildings with flat surfaces for centuries, so I'm not sure of your point there. And Sears was shipping things in cardboard boxes long before warehouses had robots with suction cups.