RE: pro licensing (sorry for the long ramble...slightly off topic)
Curtis/Michael, I think Pro -CU still could be of use, in the same manner as the current Desktop software is, without AGOL named user. I would guess that Pro concurrent license users could still add layers and based maps that are "public" and/or are from an AGS service.
The only downside I can see right now of having Pro be concurrent and not attached to AGOL, is that it will have the same firewall limitations that the current LM for desktop has. That is, if you must be inside the network to access a Desktop license, you would need the same access for the CU pro license. ...vs a named user that could access anywhere (but not necessarily their same projects and local data).
For my organization, we have about 300 users for about 50 desktop CU licenses, and therefore only 50 named users. The current license structure for Pro would require me to choose the users that have access to both...all or nothing...and also would require a more active roll when users need to add/drop Pro extension or licensing level. With Desktop and a concurrent structure, this is a more free-flow, honor system (that I just monitor) and only needs my assistance if there are conflicts or we run short on advancedseat or one if our limited extensions (in which case friendly emails are sent so the current user can notify the waiting party when they are able to release). For us, this works fairly well.
I'm hoping that we will be able to "split" our current allocation of the Pro - CU vs AGOL - licenses, at least between our two licensed "pool" groups (license managers).
I know at the UC2015 last month, the technology to make Pro CU possible had not been totally worked out yet (although they probably were further along then I was told). And of course, the actual "new" licensing agreement (legal side) is probably still being worked out.
I'm of course hoping for the best of both worlds.....without is suddenly costing a lot more for Pro and/or an AGOL named user. But for right now, we're not really gravitating towards either, because of the limitation (and our budgets not allowing more expansion) ....so CU Desktop, ArcGIS services, "public" AGOL, lcoal/network data, and web sites are still the norm for us.
For or those at universities, or with ELA's (like the Feds) where licenses might not be as restricted, I would probably agree with Curtis that there may not be a benefit to separating AGOL and Pro. But for the rest if us...
Only time and the actual release will really determine if it will work in an organizations environment. But, I'm hoping for the best.
