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.<p>e.g. Intel&#x27;s Andy Grove had a blurb on the cover of the Innovator&#x27;s Dilemma, and Intel has certainly <i>tried</i> to combat ARM with ATOM. At least, they didn&#x27;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&#x2F;tablets also don&#x27;t seem to have had any success at all in invading laptop&#x2F;PC territory, despite being more than powerful enough.<p>BTW: having read Christensen&#x27;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&#x2F;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?<p>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.