While logical, that is often not true in the market place. If it was luxury goods wouldn't exist. Why do people rate B&O so highly (nothing wrong with it, and very reliable, but hardly good value). People can be suspicious of things that are free.
That might apply to physical goods, but when it comes to the virtual, like music files, free has already won hands down. Sales on download services are leveling as YouTube becomes the most played audio service. And isn't that just the most marvelous quality?
By the way, as far as the public is concerned, there is no cost-on for MQA so far. Tidal is the same price as lossless, and there isn't a visible cost increase on the playback equipment.
I find that statement odd. Every time I raise any objections to MQA I get accused of not owning MQA-enabled hardware. Seems to me you have to buy that stuff, no? So if I had a shiny new DAC that cost me 5K in gold, I'd be looking at an "upgrade" if it wasn't MQA-enabled. Is Tidal free? 'Cuz the only free MQA I've seen is demo files, and I already own originals of my favorites.
Every time a new format is released there's a cost attached. Throw out your VHS tapes and get DVDs. Throw out your DVDs and get HD-DVDs, but then throw them out right away and get Blue-ray. And the player to match each. Thing is, the transition between any of those (except HD-DVD to BD) was clearly visible. You could see what you paid for.
There's an old marketing principle that states that rapid market penetration of a product is only possible when it is a perceived 3-fold+ improvement over the existing product. If you look at what has won in audio, you'll see that's pretty much true. FM didn't win over AM for two decades until it matched it with programming, then the quality and stereo provided the percieved improvement and it took off. CDs won with ease of use, durability and sound quality (plus a few others). DVDs won with size, play time, discrete surround sound, handling, durability, navigation...and so on.
Things that haven't succeeded quite as fast, or well, like 5.1 surround, had negatives that offset the positives (more speakers, more expense, more complexity, etc.)
mp3 won because it was better than cassettes (mostly), and freely distributed (Napster, etc.), at least for a while, and easier to deal with (instant access, playlists, huge libraries in your pocket, no physical media, etc.). Apple built its success by surmounting the negative issues of existing products, offering products with percieved 3 fold+ improvements, and they did it without improving price. (Ok, they've recently collapsed on most of that, bit it worked for quite a while).
There are some product categories that have won the market by becoming the mandatory default in spite of their being terrible solutions, failing to offer 3-fold improvements, and not being cheap/free. HDMI comes to mind first, horrible design, flakey, expensive, and unnecessary (there were already single cable solutions when HDMI arrived). It became mandatory because of studios being touchy about high definition without copy protection. But it wasn't/isn't better, or even particularly good. HD Radio is another. Bad concept, but adopted anyway (and it hasn't won any market). HD-TV, forced change-over by the need for government funding by auctioning spectrum, so mandatory. Better too, but not likely the best solution, and certainly not cheap. For something to become the mandatory default without consumer choice there must be a large industry pressure group or organization with a motive (HDMI Consortium of manufacturers and film companies, NAB for HD Radio, FCC for HD-TV).
So, what's the 3-fold+ improvement of MQA? Sound quality so far is still under debate. Is it easier? No. Is it faster? Less bandwidth than some codecs, more than others, and with bandwidth getting cheaper that's probably not a complete win. Is it cheaper? Not if you need new hardware to get the full benefit. For those reasons I don't think we will see MQA significantly penetrate the market, unless it becomes the mandatory default. Since there's no large industry pressure group with sufficient motive, all we see is a sort of band-wagon approach, which cannot have any long-term impact, that won't likely happen either.
For MQA to succeed it needs to be a major, clearly audible improvement to every listener on devices of any form factor at very least. If that were true, but it required the purchase of new hardware, it could achieve a slow market penetration as we all buy our favorite music for the third of fourth time, and the latest widget to play it on so we get that improvement. But it would have to be unmistakable, not vague, and the difference indisputable (even if you didn't like it).
Frankly, FLAC has a better chance at winning a significant market share. Already has.
