Is there evidence that disruption is happening less often? It makes sense that companies aware of it would take steps to prevent it, such as those suggested by

Is there evidence that disruption is happening less often? It makes sense that companies aware of it would take steps to prevent it, such as those suggested by Christensen, e.g. a separate organization with limited budget (so small opportunities are attractive to them), One can also aggressively buy up potential competitors - perhaps explaining recent apparently ridiculously overpriced acquisitions. e.g. Intel's Andy Grove had a blurb on the cover of the Innovator's Dilemma, and Intel has certainly tried to combat ARM with ATOM. At least, they didn't lose the laptop market. Similarly, MS acted aggressively to curtail netbooks. (Through chromebooks have had some success.) Neither have had success with smartphones - but smartphones/tablets also don't seem to have had any success at all in invading laptop/PC territory, despite being more than powerful enough. BTW: having read Christensen's first three books, I feel that he became solipsistic and over-abstact, and tried to make disruption a business theory-of-everything; coinciding with his move from academic to consultant. It amounted to: people buy what they want/need, and when that changes, a different business organization may be more suitable to serve it (accounting for things like improving different attributes; faster release cycles; different business models etc). Did it seem like this to anyone else? I preferred his early PhD work, and e.g. his graph showing that market supply for improvements increases more quickly than market demand for improvements (so is eventually over-served, and customers shift focus to other attributes). Though I could never find his HDD data or detailed justification for this, which (IIRC) involved HDD capacities in computers at average vs median prices.