*Lay people don't care about retaining an Anglican-style liturgy. They are either liberals, who would gladly have gone over after Summorum Pontificum but for their views on women and/or gays, or the rare remaining ultramontanists whose motives for not doing so are mysterious. But in either group Anglican rubrics are typically seen as constraints, rather than a "patrimony" preservation whereof is desirable. (The Book of Divine Worship is not safe for those who suffer from requiem-onset allergies to the A-word, and the English use the Pauline Missal anyway). The best reconciliation of North American Anglo-Catholic practice with the authorized provincial texts is the Anglican Gradual and Sacramentary linked at the sidebar. The archetypal Anglo-Catholic parish, S. Clement's, Philadelphia, is known for its faithful execution of the Pre-Pian liturgical tradition. And it is a parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, under Her Grace's metropolitical primacy.
*The bull is soft on the provision for married priests. They won't be allowed in the same way as in most Catholic rites apart from the Latin. So the clerical draw won't be as big. And of course, no women need apply. (Recall that there are women in diaconal orders who are card-carrying members in good standing of Forward in Faith. I would speculate that even the All Saints Sisters of the Poor, whose departure I lament, would have countenanced a hierodeacon among their number. But then I'm a shameless optimist. I'm already musing about Massachusetts-resident clergy ministering in Canada).
I predict that Western Rite Orthodoxy, which offers an ancient Western liturgical tradition, a married priesthood, and unquestionably authentic apostolic pedigree, will be far more successful. Meanwhile, the "liberal" Catholic wing of the Canterbury-affiliated churches in North America will acquire greater visibility.