I found 4e works well as a game of heroic questing with big set-piece battles and a lot of emphasis on characters. A good way to think of it would be as an Avengers movie with a Lord of the Rings reskin.

For structural reasons it does not do well at sandboxing, mercenary adventurers, or traditional dungeon crawls - ie it does not do traditional "D&D" well; whereas if you think of it as a mid-power superhero game in a fantasy setting it is a great game.
Thank you.
Yes, this is the root of all those "it isn't D&D" complaints.
Because if you find that you must choose between easy combats and long combats, then the game does fail at the core.
Choose easy, and you do have time for story. On the other hand, the game gets this "plastic" feeling, somewhat like a superhero movie, since there is little challenge and few consequences.
Choose long, and you are rewarded by very fun and exciting combats where you really must use every little ability and special condition to prevail. But this leaves precious little time for role-playing. Basically time's up when combat is over, or you need to proceed to the next combat right away. This leads to the feeling you're essentially playing a board game, not entirely unjustified.
So there you have it. I would say those complaints are too numerous, and too grounded in actual play experiences, to be dismissed as edition-warring.
4E simply is
that different from 3E, 5E and the rest.
Does that mean it is worthless? No.
But does it mean it can't be used to "play D&D" for lots of groups? Definitely.
The argument you need to change what you mean by "playing D&D" to fit what 4E is offering always galled me. I believe that is the root of why 4E failed. Most people tried it, but switched to other systems that let them play
the way they want to, instead of the way a corporation wanted them too.
The proprietary locked-down tools didn't help either. Companies always shuts down services and servers. Don't make ttrpgs rely on those.