> By that definition, you can call any paradigm-shifting invention a "platform" I'd argue that, until proven otherwise, you probably should. > it's a new kind

> By that definition, you can call any paradigm-shifting invention a "platform" I'd argue that, until proven otherwise, you probably should. > it's a new kind of peripheral, or a new interaction paradigm that unlocks new things. Look you're right! No doubt about that. The only problem with your mental model is that it is limiting, rather than expanding. Even if they are wrong to call it a "platform", using wording that evokes an "expanding mental model" has benefits. I'll give you an example of where your thinking might cause "limitation". Specifically the iPhone. In 2007 when touch screen was added to a phone, Apple could have left everything else about a phone the same i.e. "touch is just a new interaction paradigm". Basically a Palm Pilot without the AppStore or a Browser. However, they realized "touch isn't just a new interaction paradigm, its a whole new enabler/platform of <stuff not previously possible>, lets push to create that and see what happens." People might be very wrong that personalized-audio, as a new interaction paradigm, will lead to a new enabler/platform of <stuff not previously possible>. But just because it might be wrong or not lead any where, doest mean we should discourage it's pursuit.