What would be helpful is some sort Google-recognized meta tag that says, "this site is https only, please index it as such." 301 redirects might work in theory, but theory isn't good enough when your business relies on how it appears in Google's results. Even a temporary demotion could mean lots of money and confidence lost.
At the time of that video, the indexing team was still working on one (very minor, corner case) type of issue, but I believe that was resolved. I'll double-check with the indexing team, but at this point I'd say feel free to go HTTPS.
As always, I'd test it out first, ideally with a lower-traffic domain name. But if you like the results you get, you should be able to use our existing tools like 301s and rel=canonical to help Google discover that the site has gone HTTPS.
If this is a serious statement, then let me give you a serious answer: any minor increase in processing power won't inconvenience Google in the slightest. And even if it did, that still wouldn't matter. If it is good for web security and users - which I believe it is - then we're in favour of it.
The consideration here is whether the algorithms are going to do the right thing, forwarding people, pagerank, referers, etc in the same way as before. That's not a question I can answer, but I'd go with whatever Matt Cutts has said.
1. I simply don't have enough IPv4 addresses to put each SSL site on its own IP address, IPv6, sure, bring it on ... but generally if someone has IPv6 connectivity, then they have SNI (see 3)
2. I don't have the money to get a certificate with X amount of domains on it
3. SNI is still not a good idea simply because there exist still a lot of Windows XP clients that are unable to use it.
I am not too worried about the extra CPU cycles for the encryption decryption of connections...
Currently on my sites I don't have any reason to use SSL, other than that I would like to protect certain resources such that my account username/password for my personal blog don't go across the ether in plain-text. For that I currently use self-signed SSL certs from a personal root that I can trust in the computers I want to trust them in.
 StartSSL.com offers free 1 year single domain certificates.
They why respond? You're missing the point about requiring an IPv4 addy for each cert. That's the big issue.
Why not just offer HTTP and HTTPS on the same IP?
I'm aware of SNI (and rely on it myself), but haven't found it to be an issue yet.
As far as I can see it's IE < 7 and XP. How big can that market really be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Browsers...
If it's the "some corporations require IE6" argument, then it sounds like it's a business, and should be able to charge for the extra IP needed. But maybe I'm just horribly modern.
Also, my sites that I would want to enable would be public sites ... ones that I don't charge for since they are mostly public sites (but I still want to protect credentials for people posting comments and the like). So charging for an extra IP is simply not an option.
verifying your identity is a once yearly cost of $60
no more excuses :)
That is very much inside my price range.
I often run into setups where someone has enabled SSL, gotten the cert installed and just left things at that with no further work done to configure versions/cipher preferences/http headers etc.
SSL Labs Server Test is a good place to start: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssldb/
Why is that even an option? This entire article is written in such a way that most users are going to assume that Facebook is going to start loading at a snails pace.
Turning on SSL is technically slower, but it certainly is not going to be noticeable. Perhaps if all Facebook was serving was a couple of small text files, the overhead associated with SSL could be noticed, but with that isn't the case.