The point is that "modern" doesn't actually mean anything at all -- all you're saying is that something seems to you, subjectively, to be somehow newer in relation to older things, but you're (a) talking about yourself, not about the thing you're evaluating, and (b) not even describing any of the concrete qualities of the thing itself that may be informing that subjective impression.

When someone describes something as "modern", are they saying that it's large or small? Is it bright or dark? Simple or complex? Fast or slow? That term encompasses no answers to any of these questions.

Oh no. I think all I mostly mean here is "plays more nicely with current stuff."

Interoperability seems very "classic" to me -- the "modern" trend is to try to turn everything into a walled garden that diverges from common interface conventions and stops supporting standard protocols.