For what it's worth, they do allow credit roll-over now (up to some limit).
Still, I'm annoyed at the DRM, I can't listen to what I want where I want, and there are alternative DRM-free alternatives, so I'm also seriously considering cancelling my account. Glad to hear they still let you access your previous purchases (it was my main worry).
It's pretty simple: An unvalidated/unauthenticated certificate looks like a MITM. Requesting an HTTPS resource indicates you want a secured connection. If the certificate is not trusted, then you don't have a secure connection.
The criteria is not self-signed, it's trusted/authenticated or not. Most self-signed certs are not trusted, and solving that solves the CA problem. But if a self-signed cert is trusted then browsers happily display the secure UI without any errors.
Two clearly unbiased and factual analyses there :)
It would take quite some time to sit down and address all the points gathered on the PSYC page. That page has been around a long time, and used to be a lot more aggressive than it reads now. At one point it even contained a quote from a mailing list post of mine, snipped to remove just the right amount of context. I'm glad to see they've cleaned it up a bit, to at least make it appear somewhat more objective, even if they still think it's objective to make technical statements like "XMPP isn't proper XML".
One of its main points is of performance and scalability. Well I'm afraid that horse bolted - for nearly a decade Google have been successfully running (one of?) the world's largest IM services using XMPP.
Regarding your second link, well, that seems to be set on comparing XMPP to IRC:
> A protocol that, despite an immense range of features, can easily be typed by a human on a telnet prompt, in real time.
Making a protocol that could be typed over telnet obviously wasn't the goal of XMPP. For what it did set out to do - create an open standard IM protocol to give normal people a path to freedom from the old IM silos that were around 10 years ago - I'd say it has been pretty successful. Maybe not as successful as one might have hoped, those silos are still around, but for political and commercial reasons rather than technical ones.
Funnily enough, that's exactly what they did do, back in 2008 :)
Originally Android included an XMPP API that applications could use to connect to Google and other XMPP services. This got replaced by a Google Talk-specific API at the same time they switched to a proprietary protocol.
Naive implementations of XMPP on mobile can indeed get quite power hungry, but it doesn't have to be that way. Thankfully I've seen quite a bit of interest lately from mobile clients who wish to improve on this - all the resources are out there.