You're not calculating cost correctly. Think of it from an information theoretic point of view. You exist in a network that has already converged to a dominant representation. It's essentially a nigh universally understood application of those terms in a technical context. Even more than an API, it could be considered a part of socio-technical ABI or calling convention.

Imagine if you will a world in which every individual starts changing what they call things on a whim every day. You run into a Tower of Babel problem, and one that at best, stabilizes to a dynamic equilibrium i.e., the problem never stops, it just changes from thing to thing. Symbol changes have cost. That cost quickly amplifies in terms of required reconciliation and update of protocol across the entire human network. That means across languages, cultures, education systems, etc.

What you'll find, is this seriously grates against a bunch of people way more interested in getting work done and being understood without being on receiving end of This Week's Polemic at the same time.

This may sound callous or cold, but there is a reason society does not wholesale rewrite foundational communication structures/cultures/techné/art/etc... on a whim, and when it does happen, it's not just because a small group gets a marginal bump, but the change warrants such a bump in overall benefit or actualizable horizons of possibility, that it becomes worth the chaos of adapting to the change and shepherding it along.

Every individual may think they only have to pay or exact a one time cost but that quickly compounds.Think of all the times you end up saying "You know what I mean?" and the recipient goes on to demonstrate they do. This is one of those cases where one can only really justify change having a trivial cost in the presence of ascribing a value modifier of 0 or less to tradition, instead of actually accounting for all the instances of questions that don't need to be asked, because there is an instinctual, endemic response. While one or another person looking at themselves in isolation may see the cost as trivial to enact in their local sphere of influence, it exacts a non trivial cost in the overall context of human to human communication over time.

Note, I'm not saying no one should try to change these types of things. To do so, or try to is the essence of politics; I'm merely pointing out that the only way you see no cost is if you did count a whole lot of other implicit dependencies elsewhere as not significant.

You do you, but reality has a way of making it hurt when people do that.

That's what I wrote. But the Professional Audio Manufacturers Alliance does not represent an affected group.