Why is 1.g3 criticized?

Why? Why you critisize 1.c4 e5 2.g3? Or 1.Nf3 e5 2.g3? No? Then don't critisize 1.g3.

I do not criticize g3.  It can be used as a transpositonal device.  But my beef on it is that people play it without knowing why they are doing it.

I dont critisize it either

I love hypermodern openings

Sub-best moves are always criticised.  Just look at the game Anand just won.  He played a winning move and it got a ? because it wasnt the best move.  In the same way, 1.g3 is criticised when 1.e4 is available! 

because e4 and d4 get the center!

Why not criticize 1. g3? Criticism is healthy, we would still be in the romantic era of chess if steintz didn't criticize them.

Besides, all those openings are completely unique.  Just because 1. g3 was played in all 3 does not make them the same.

I think the main problem with 1.g3 is it gives black more flexiblity, black can respond in a number of ways. After 1.g3 black can play 1...e5, d5, Nf6,c5. 

g3 only works if you know how to use it.

at top level play your opponent will probably be able to know weather you like the Reti or English more, so they will play against your prep. however unless your like 2500+ play g3 all you want no body is gonna look up what openings you play.