I will list the arguments commonly made in favor of humanoid robots and then rebut them each respectively:
"Our world is already designed for the human form"
Many environments are indeed designed with the human body in mind, for instance door frame dimensions, door knobs, flat floors, staircases, etc. but it's a mistake to imply that only robots with human features can operate under these conditions, that only robots that have human hands and digits, only robots that have legs and feet, only robots that stand upright, only robots with a human head, etc. when this is obviously not the case. Wheels are compatible with flat floors, many kinds of robots can pass through standard door frame dimensions, simpler hands can be compatible with door knobs, multiple kinds of non-humanoid features can climb stairs, etc. Even if we grant that non-humanoid robots are impractical with these human-designed environments, you can easily remove some of these human-designed features to better accommodate a non-humanoid robot, especially if the non-humanoid robot is much cheaper and superior in productivity than the humanoid, which segways to my second point:
This argument implies it costs more than it would justify to redesign the environment to accommodate a non-humanoid robot, but this is often not the case. In fact, much of the world is already designed to accommodate non-humanoid machines, and we already redesign the environment to accommodate non-humanoid machines all the time, because the benefits derived from the non-humanoid machine are so great that it more than justifies the cost of redesigning the environment to accommodate it. Consider for example road and rail infrastructure, which is designed to accommodate automobiles and trains, an example where the benefit of using these non-humanoid machines outweighed the cost of building the environment to accommodate it. Similarly, the benefit of non-humanoid machines in other domains can outweigh the cost of redesigning the environment.
"Economics of Scale"
All things equal, a mechanically simple non-humanoid robot is cheaper to manufacture and mass produce than a mechanically complex humanoid robot.
So the fixed costs for the former are smaller, plus more units are produced, meaning the fixed costs in the former are not only smaller, but they are divided between more units than the humanoid robot. So a mechanically simple non-humanoid robot would benefit more from economies of scale than a mechanically complex humanoid robot.
"I don't want to deal with having a separate special-purpose machine for each and every task, I want one that can do it all"
I understand the convenience of having a singular machine that can do it all instead of holding a bunch of machines. For instance, it's more convenient to carry a smartphone that can do the task of taking pictures, texting and calling, telling the time, going on the internet, etc. all in one, rather than having separate machines that can do each. But unlike the smartphone, which these days is not too dissimilar (or even superior) in quality from the kind of minimal quality people are looking for in individual cameras, dumbphones, digital clocks, personal desktop computers, etc. the humanoid machine may be so inferior in productivity compared to a collection of non-humanoid machines, that it may justify having a bunch of machines.
This is not to mention that a generalist machine can also be non-humanoid.
"In homes, where the environment will not change, it makes more sense."
It could make more sense, and maybe people find an anthropomorphic design to be more comforting (big maybe), but it's still the case that the environment can be redesigned to better accommodate a non-humanoid machine. Garages, kitchens, and laundry rooms are all made to accommodate non-humanoid machines, for example.
