I find that it is a wonderful tool. All you have to do is learn to use it. It does not do everything but it makes most corrections much easier.
Don't get me wrong, it's an improvement over the old healing brush, and I agree that sometimes using it as a starting point and then doing some additional touch-ups works well. But this feature was massively over-hyped by Adobe (and pretty much everybody else) back in the spring, and IMHO it doesn't deliver the goods, at least not the extent people were initially led to believe.
I've continued to experiment with the CA-fill. One thing I've found is that using a tight selection and the "fill" command seems to work quite a bit better than using the spot-healing brush in CA mode. The spot healing brush still falls down badly when removing elements at the edge of the frame, for instance.
The thing about cloning/healing, is that if there's any sign of it all the image is a failure IMHO. If the result from CA-fill is only "not as bad as the clone tool", that's still not good enough if one cares at all about the quality of their work. That's why I found the results in the Brown video laughable, the results didn't pass scrutiny in a web video, there's NO WAY they would have been acceptable in print. If I was the photographer credited for the images, I'd be pissed that my work was shown in that light.