What is the deal with the "Star Wars" robots being called 'droids by most everyone?

There seems to be considerable confusion about this. If you've been a reader of Science Fiction since the fifties and sixties (and enjoyed some terrific science fiction Sci Fi films since that time), you would probably comprehend the following.

Robots are complex mechanical devices, which can perform many—and sometimes very complex--functions. Androids ('droids, for short) are synthetic humans, i.e., very sophisticated artificial beings which are humanoid in appearance (and in operation), and have a relatively high degree of higher cognitive function, including self-awareness, and self-determination.

An excellent example would be the "Data" character in the Star Trek Next Generation (STNG) TV series. Other fine examples are the synthetic humans in the two current TV series "Extant" and "Human." They have plenty of A.I. ("Artificial Intelligence"), and human appearance (including human-like pliable skin), but—by contrast--a self aware "entity" which is actually part of a star-ship--like "Hal" in the picture "2001" would not be an android, nor would an intelligent being with a mechanical look and construction (no matter how intelligent).

The key to this, of course, lies with the etymology of the word android, which is derived from the combining form “andro”…man or human…and “oid”…of like form, or of the nature of. In a word, a humanoid—very human-like—artificial being. By this definition, the mechanical figures in the Star Wars series are 'bots (i.e., robots), though--yes--they do seem to possess some degree of awareness, identity and computational ability. They are NOT androids (or ‘droids).

If you would appreciate an even more conclusive answer, I refer you to Sci Fi granddaddy, Isaac Asimov, and his classic “I, Robot,” published in 1950, which was the basis for the fine recent motion picture of the same name, starring Will Smith. This book was actually a collection of nine stories about highly functioning robots, and were STILL known as ROBOTS (not androids). You might also wish to recall that Asimov laid down the fundamental “Laws of Robotics” which have been employed by many other writers since those days.

What’s more, there was another fine collection of stories on this topic--in those early days--by Eando Binder, with the very first story bearing the identical title as Asimov’s book, “I, Robot.” These characters--including a sympathetic individual, "Adam Link”--as well, were intelligent and self-motivated entities (and bore some general resemblance to human beings)…yet were, nonetheless, ROBOTS. If I'm not mistaken, in at least one case, a robot was even granted legal "personhood." Yet, he was still a robot, God bless him!! ; )

Now, there were a couple of sixties sci-fi TV series episodes based on Link's story (and both starred Leonard Nimoy, incidentally). On reflection, I will admit that some cases might comprise a “gray area,” between the two types of “entities,” yet the R2D2 and 3CPO characters are unequivocally robots and not “droids.” Unless you buy Humpty Dumpty’s argument that one may name anything one likes at one’s complete discretion, like calling your mom a chocolate cake, or your dog a monkey wrench. OK, do you finally “get it?” ; )

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass."

Let’s attack this again. An android is an entity which/who strongly possesses those qualities which distinctly define a homo sapien, such as self-awareness, intelligence, a moral sense, self-determination and an ability to plan and execute an action…and have a very human appearance, based on the literal meaning of android (“of the nature and form of a human”) (and even though some functions may be performed by mechanical or electronic components, in an “artificial person”). Presumably the Star Wars characters refer to the mechanical beings with considerable “artificial intelligence” (AI) as “’droids” because they meet some of the characteristics I listed (and perhaps with an element of respect), but they do not meet ALL of the requirements, thus are correctly considered robots (or “’bots”).

Androids and droids are completely different meaning, but quite relatable. Androids are often robots, but human appearance and droids are simply robots with an AI system.

Because that's what they are called in the movie

Because that's what they call them in the film.

What's the deal with some people having no idea what they're talking about?

Because they are called droids in the movies.