I guess I hadn't seen the degree of polarization...more just conversations with fellow game enthusiasts, either in person or on the net.
My guess is that some folks may have felt bent out of shape over the game because they were expecting a role-playing game in a box, but instead got a mover/builder mechanic with a "take THAT!" card game aspect.
Me, I liked it...but some gamers WANT things their way...well, who knows?
I'll just keep praising it, & hope we get some more pronouncements from teh officials at FFG on the subject.
I'm a fan, but:
(1) The rulebook is very poorly organized and very large. And because it's competitive, it's necessary for everyone at the table to have an equal grasp of the rules. (Unlike a complicated co-op game, you can't just rely on a guru to walk you through it.) As a result you either have to resign yourself to spending 1-2 hours reviewing the rules before you play each time. Or you need to play frequently enough that the complex rules aren't forgotten between games. But it's simultaneously a lengthy game in its own right, so both frequent playing and tacking on an extra 1-2 hours of rule review are unappealing options for lots of people.
(2) Strategies for victory can be very unclear even after you've read the rulebook because so many of the rules are actually found on the cards. Once again, frequently playing of a rather lengthy game are required to get familiar enough with the game to really start mastering any kind of strategy for it. Most people don't have the insight to REALIZE the game offers a richer and more complex strategy than their first couple play-thrus would indicate.
(3) The game was sold as a murder-solving game set in a Blade Runner-esque setting. They delivered on the milieu; but the murder-solving mechanic (as is oft lamented) feels like a suspect-framing mechanic. I think the mechanic works fine, but it didn't deliver what a lot of people (including me) felt we had been promised.
(4) The game has a sweet spot for the number of players it requires. It's not quite as limiting as Diplomacy's "you must have exactly 7 players for this game to work right" reality, but we've found that 3 player play is not rewarding compared to 4-5 players. And the number of times we've laid Android aside because we had less than 4 players or more than 5 players is not insignificant.
(5) It's really easy for 1-2 players to end up in a position of "I can no longer win this game" with 1-2 hours of play left. That's really not much fun. (This can be partially fixed by adding a mechanic for removing hits from a suspect, because the #1 way to end up in a no-win scenario is to watch helplessly as your suspect gets assassinated. But this also creates game balance problems.)
That, in a nutshell, is what went wrong with the game.
To make some comparisons:
It requires just as much set-up as Arkham Horror, but I have to spend 10x longer explaining the rules to new players because we can't effectively explain the rules as we go along.
It's very comparable to Twilight Imperium in terms of rule complexity and set-up time, but when a new player finishes as game of Twilight Imperium they can usually identify the tactical or strategic mistakes they made and see a clear solution for how they can "play better next time" (thus motivating them to try again). Android is not without strategy, but it's buried so deep that first time players may be more likely to see nothing but chaos and a random outcome without any idea of how they could do better the next time around.