[Tloewald]

It seems to me that Christensen's theories have always been post-facto hooey. Indeed, the ultimate irony is that he has ridden a wave of success essentially by being credited with "explaining" Apple's success when he not only didn't, but can't even explain it post-facto, and — as the article points out — was hilariously and embarrassingly wrong about the iPhone. What this article points out is that he was wrong even about the very cases (hard drives and steam shovels) on which he built his theory, having cherry picked data and defined his terms to suit his conclusions like a champion.

There are definite insights in his books. I've seen the issues he discusses at play first hand. But for every incumbent disrupted by a feisty startup, there are plenty who are absorbed by incumbents, or have a short spectacular success followed by a flameout, while the incumbents trudge on at their own pace.