Lazy:
The argument is not merely semantics. There are very distinct differences between what defines a platform and what defines a brand strategy in the tech world. A platform defines an upgrade path between each generation/revision of a product line that establishes the functionality of the last revision as the baseline of functionality for the next revision and allows an existing owner to migrate to the latest product revision bringing as much of their existing investment in content with them as possible, and allows new owners to purchase the latest platform revision while still being able to take advantage of the platform content and functionality that existed prior to that revision.
Without that all you've got is the same name on a new, incompatible product with a vague promise to provide updates for some portion of content released for earlier products. We know from experience that partnerships deteriorate (Oddworld, DoubleFine with their projects with MS for Xbox), alliances shift (Final Fantasy shifts mostly to Sony consoles, Resident Evil shifts mostly to Gamecube) and publishers sometimes decide to simply let an IP lie fallow for an extended period of time (no Metroid update on N64) so there's no guarantees here. The only assured commonality between the two incompatible products in question that's of any worth to the consumer is the company who makes them and their dedication to the brand. Like I said, you then have a cross generation brand strategy, not a platform.
The argument is not merely semantics. There are very distinct differences between what defines a platform and what defines a brand strategy in the tech world. A platform defines an upgrade path between each generation/revision of a product line that establishes the functionality of the last revision as the baseline of functionality for the next revision and allows an existing owner to migrate to the latest product revision bringing as much of their existing investment in content with them as possible, and allows new owners to purchase the latest platform revision while still being able to take advantage of the platform content and functionality that existed prior to that revision.
Without that all you've got is the same name on a new, incompatible product with a vague promise to provide updates for some portion of content released for earlier products. We know from experience that partnerships deteriorate (Oddworld, DoubleFine with their projects with MS for Xbox), alliances shift (Final Fantasy shifts mostly to Sony consoles, Resident Evil shifts mostly to Gamecube) and publishers sometimes decide to simply let an IP lie fallow for an extended period of time (no Metroid update on N64) so there's no guarantees here. The only assured commonality between the two incompatible products in question that's of any worth to the consumer is the company who makes them and their dedication to the brand. Like I said, you then have a cross generation brand strategy, not a platform.
Sony aimed for 100% BC and very nearly achieved it. There's nothing arbitrary about the extent to which the PS2 supports PS software and peripherals. There's a very small quantifiable list of incompatible PS product. If you want to qualify it as "nearly complete" backward compatability, then be my guest but that doesn't change the fact that there is very large quantifiable difference between this level of BC and none at all.
No, I didn't miss the difference regarding development environments. I questioned its relevance to the concept of a cross-generational Xbox platform where BC and significant baseline functionality (i.e. at least 8 gig of fixed storage) are not guaranteed to tie the generations together.
Eureka!
Yes, I know. But since you seem to put high value on the determination of a platform based on brand association then it is significant to note that the brand is changing, at least in part. And we don't even know if Xenon will be labeled with the Xbox brand for sure...