320kbps MP3s disappoint everyone
For people who want decent quality but need small files (e.g. limited capacity portable music player), they will have to re-encode to a smaller bitrate. Putting the same piece of audio through a lossy-compression algorithm twice sucks for quality. It's certainly not something anyone should pay money for.
For people who want the best quality, FLAC or some other lossless encoding format is better than 320kbps MP3. The MP3 will sound fine for most people, but if you're going to have large files anyway then why not go the distance and give us FLAC so that everyone is happy?
People can then batch-transcode to lower bitrates (for portable players) as they require and they will always have optimum quality that their target format can provide without any quality lost because of how it started off.
Of course, some people just want a 192kbps MP3 that they can play everywhere without using up a lot of space or having to be transcoded, and that should be an option as well. Options are important, as others have said, but the batch transcoding tools are so easy to use now that, download time aside, I don't see why anyone should dislike a FLAC download.
I am glad to see the music industry is slowing switching to DRM-free digital sales but I still won't buy any of their products online unless they give me the same quality, and adaptability when it comes to transcoding, that I get from buying a CD. So far it's only a few independent releases and labels which get this right.
It's also funny how the video industry is *increasing* quality, from VHS to DVD to the new high-definition formats, while the music industry seems intend on *decreasing* quality from CDs to gratuitously compressed downloads. I guess your average punter notices visual quality a lot easier than they notice audible quality.