Christensen's thesis is very specific though. It's that: * Companies continue to add features and complexity onto a product to grow their market. * A competit

Christensen's thesis is very specific though. It's that: * Companies continue to add features and complexity onto a product to grow their market. * A competitor comes along with a product that is worse and cheaper. * Structural forces prevent the incumbents from following because the lost revenue from existing lines of business exceed the potential of new business. * Competitors continue to grow their market and eat into the dominance of incumbents. * The competitors then become the incumbents and the cycle continues anew. That's a very specific chain of events that makes testable predictions and is far from the broad, overly encompassing definition of disruption. A great example of the disruption process following the Christensen model would be AirBNB. When AirBNB debuted, it was objectively crappier on almost all metrics compared to hotels. However, as AirBNB has grown, it's steadily started addressing it's deficiencies against hotels. At the same time, structural factors meant that Hilton could have never gotten into the same business as AirBNB because they had a brand to protect. As a result, AirBNB is now valued at a non-trivial percentage of the entire hotel business.