Shouldn't you have asked if we agree with Neil Young *and* AIX, instead of "or"? Because those two are in agreement that MQA is an inferior format.
As I do not have anything which can decode MQA, I have not been able to compare it to anything else. It does strike me that it has some potential benefits, in that by being a high quality, low-loss compressed stream, it should be able to reproduce a very good quality playback which exceeds 320K AAC while still conserving bandwidth and digital storage. As many cannot tell a difference between 320K and FLAC, certainly there is an audience for whom MQA is more than sufficient. I can understand a company which must pay for bandwidth and storage for 60M+ songs would have financial motivation to use a compressed format.
OTOH for those with high quality audio systems, MQA may fall short of Lossless. If I drop $20K, $50K on a system, it is understandable if I don't want my music to be run through a compression / decompression process, even if it is a very good one. Perhaps even more of an objection for my purchased & locally stored music library to be MQA-compressed. Especially as storage and high speed bandwidth grows less expensive.
I wonder if there is a viable economic model for MQA. Are there enough customers who want something more than 320K but are willing to settle for less than Lossless? And pay a premium for that middle ground compromise? A premium which includes the cost of MQA-compatible hardware.