Where XML really shines is as an interchange format between the type of mission critical upgraded-once-a-decade systems that are the bread and butter of Big Business IT.
I think XML got it's bad rep from people applying it where it's bulk and complexity is just not needed. For instance, storing configuration for an application that you completely control or shuffling around data inside of an application domain that you can change at will.
XML is not a good interchange format, because it doesn't map well to a standard programming structures. There's no array or map in XML. Developers must use OXM libraries (object to xml mapper). JSON is much more direct and simple format.
XML is good for anything that looks like document markup.
Sometimes your actual data doesn't map well to "standard programming structures". If that's the case, you really want your interchange format to express reality as far as possible, not how it will be processed in any particular program. I don't have enough experience to be authoritative here, but this seems like a bad argument.
I will agree that JSON is 'simple' but it is only 'direct' in the context of javascript. For other languages, it is similar to XML in handling overhead. JSON's significant technical problem is a lack of a formal schema definition and enforcement mechanism. You may feel that this is actually an advantage, but I assure you, as someone who has written systems of record for billion dollar businesses, it is not.
I think XML got it's bad rep from people applying it where it's bulk and complexity is just not needed. For instance, storing configuration for an application that you completely control or shuffling around data inside of an application domain that you can change at will.