I think the real issue, like most design issues, is the purpose of the humanoid robot. It might be a good thing if it is being sent into a dangerous situation where no human could go to rescue somebody since it might help to, say, comfort a scared child if it looks human rather than industrial. On the other hand, if it's just clean your floor for you, I have no use for all the extra "stuff".
Putting humanoid features on a robot is like slapping lipstick on a pig. The basic reason someone would want to do so is to do "human" things to the robot (i.e. FOA, dancing, etc. >;-D). Other than that we already have six billion expert humans out there being human so why compound the problem by adding even more "humans". Leave robots looking like machines so they can be functionally simpler and humans can enjoy the luxury of beating one into scrap with a baseball bat when it makes us angry.
Are they robots or androids? We're not exactly sure. Each talking, gesturing Geminoid looks exactly like a real individual, starting with their creator, professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University in Japan.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.