"... because audiophiles way overspend"

Three comments on this:

1. Audiophiles are usually criticised for spending way too much on equipment, and not enough on music.
2. I expect Rolling Stone may be trying to attract / talk to a younger target market - for many in this group, the concept of actually paying for music is incomprehensible.
3. I find it a little bizarre that streaming services can get away with calling Redbook (16/44.1) music files high resolution. Everywhere else in the audio world, high resolution is greater than Redbook. 

But I guess you could say that it is compared to mp3 most people listen to.

But still, mp3 should be called lossy and RedBook should be called Standard Resolution and not HighResolution.

But that said, you can already see the (american) audio societies setting up a new marketing scam for defrauding people by allowing anything that is offered in a container that is higher than 44.1/16 to be called HighResolution, regardless of the source material put into that container.

The JAS (Japanes Audio Society) has a more truthfull system requiring every part of the recording, production and replay chain to be 96/24 or more before it can be called Hgh Resolution.

Besides the high or non high resolution aspect, I hope recording engineers will again pick up the art of recording and potentially always have two version - radio version (loud oriented) and normal versions. Obviously for classic and jazz this difference would be irrelevant.

I'm sure that if the labels could get away with charging double (to cover their "costs") they would offer it. 

Best way to avoid such banality s not to be an audiophile. Just be yourself and what other people try to label you is basicly their problem.