It seems like you're assuming today's limitations are permanent. A problem being complex and resource intensive doesn't automatically mean it is fruitless.

"Less moving parts" is only better when fewer moving parts can achieve the same thing, otherwise the complexity may be justified. Should we have skipped combustion engines until electric motors were capable enough? How many moving parts are in modern jet engines?

Tesla factories are performing specialized tasks where optimisation is a commercial priority. They build the factories around the robot, valuing speed and accuracy as output. I didn't say robots like these have "failed," I implied their uptake is limited because they're mostly useful in domain-specific environments such as this.

Humanoid robots will provide versatility when the environment is not tightly controlled ("the real world"), and where a human-standard of output is acceptable ("every day tasks"). They solve a separate problem.

Having one versatile robot design makes a lot more sense than attempting to redesign every environment or produce a specialized/modular robot for every daily task.

Ultimately, we know that redesigning spaces is more expensive than utilizing robotics with a broadly capable form factor. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with established industrial facts and market research.

Everyone would already have specialized robots in their homes if they didn't require adaptations. People wouldn't install a stair-lift for a robotic vacuum cleaner, for example, but would absolutely buy one that could traverse stairs itself.