ArcGIS Pro Concurrent licensing retiring

[GISWT]

We are hoping to expand the usage and licenses of ArcGIS Pro within our organisation but have been told that we cannot purchase Concurrent licenses as they are being depreciated and our only option is named user. We are a small organisation with only 2 core GIS users and many adhoc users, when they need to use ArcGIS it is for short-term projects and tasks, often with quick turnaround. It is not viable for us to buy licenses for all of these users but having to manually assign licenses as and when a user needs one also creates a major blocker for us in the system (what if the admins are unavailable, which is highly likely).

Has anyone else come up against this issue and been forced down the named user path? How are you managing the situation? I can't find any documentation or Esri communication about this change and can imagine many more companies will have similar difficulties. The only thing I can find is it almost happened in 2016 but in 2017 Esri back tracked because of user discontent.

[ZachBodenner]

From what I recall discussing this issue with ESRI, the backtracking you mentioned wasn't actually a complete backtrack - basically what they did is determine that any organization that already had concurrent licensure got to keep it, but no new organizations could go down that route. From everything I've read, you are kind of in a tough spot and you're reading the situation correctly. You can only get named user licenses if you don't already have a concurrent license deployment.

Someone with more experience can definitely correct me though, I hope I'm wrong!

[BillFox]

do you have options to stand up some web app builder types of viewers that could meet your ad hoc user's needs?

[GISWT]

Thanks Bill, this will cover some of their needs but not all as often the adhoc users have needs that are very focused in the Desktop environment, producing drawings or conducting analysis that can't be done in the web environment. Some of this work can be pushed onto a dedicated team but not all of it. Particularly things like drawing production is in the skillset of many more users, we have lots of small projects with limited budget and it's better to keep that to people focused on the projects who know their data and deliverables. Whereas the dedicated team will also be needed for other more complex scripting/developer tasks not necessarily in the desktop environment and I don't want to limit them to basic work such as drawings just because they're the ones with the licenses. We do use QGIS where possible but we have some particular tools in ArcGIS developed for analysis workflows or for things like map series that we don't want to (and in some cases can't) redevelop in QGIS.

[RandyKreuziger1]

Wow, we have an ELA and concurrent licenses.  We have over 400 users who log into Pro over the course of a year but maybe only 45 core users.  Without a developer to create some simple targeted web applications those users still need Pro now and then.  I think it could be a big win for QGIS.  

[BillFox]

do the license levels help any to maybe move some to basic vs standard vs advanced or are they needing all advanced?

[SheriNorton]

Our County was just informed that the cost for our annual maintenance in 2025+ will go up ~ $8,000 and yanks all our flexible concurrent Pro desktop licenses in "exchange" for either Professional or Creator strictly named seats. We currently have 13 concurrent licenses (2 Advanced, 6 Standard, 5 Basic) shared by 5 core users (every day, all day) and 15+ additional mixed frequent-sporadic users. This represents an enormous investment to purchase and maintain to meet the needs of our staff. To suddenly face the stark change ESRI will impose is infuriating and deeply disappointing.

I had not seriously considered QGIS, but we may face no choice in the near future.

[ChelseaRozek]

I'm considering dropping our Basic licenses to help offset the difference. They don't seem very helpful since they can't edit. Do you have users who only use the Basic level? Would hate to get rid of them and miss some obvious benefit aside from cheaper cost

[SheriNorton]

These new levels are all so new to me, honestly. We do have quite a few staff that are only using a Basic (ArcView!!! - yes, showing my vintage here) license to review data and make some maps. They're fine editing local Shapefiles, so as long as that capability exists I think the Basic licenses will be OK.

[DavidBollinger]

Hi Sherri, I feel your pain - or likely will soon.  We're a rural County with 16Adv, 9Std, 4Bas, all concurrent, and current maintenance for those is right at $40k/yr.  I've not yet heard officially, but I've "done the math" just as prep, if forced to convert to subscription.  As of today:  16*4200+9*2200+4*700 ~= $90k.  About a $50k/yr increase, ie more than double.  It already feels like our GIS is operating on a shoe-string budget, so I have no idea how we'd manage that sort of increase.  (and last time I checked, a suitable ELA was FAR outside our range, so that's probably still not a viable alternative either)