I think the "disruption" thesis presented in the wired article is perfectly reasonable. Clayton Christensen has his own theory of disruption too as you point ou

I think the "disruption" thesis presented in the wired article is perfectly reasonable. Clayton Christensen has his own theory of disruption too as you point out in reference to his book. The wired article is reviewing books that analyze disruption in terms of the broader social/legal context vs Christensen who focuses on disruption in terms of a company and the market. Both are valid.