The significant factor in "disruption" [Christensen] is not low-end products - incumbents typically crush them, and markets consolidate over time; many competit

The significant factor in "disruption" [Christensen] is not low-end products - incumbents typically crush them, and markets consolidate over time; many competitors become few. What's newsworthy and puzzling is when the low-end entrant does win. The key factor (IMHO from reading several of his books) is when incumbents cannot address low-end entrants, because their customers have captured them in some way (e.g. all aspects of the organization are optimized to their customers). Thought experiment: how could this apply to human thought? i.e. what is a low-end that we couldn't address? Disclaimer: I really like Christensen's reasoning, theories, and expression of them... but he did predict the iphone would not be disruptive. So, at best, difficult to apply!