[thinkerer]

Feels like the author is trying hard to debunk the book's claims by attacking the definitions. I would think that by providing counter examples or counter thesis would have been more effective.

For example, saying the excavator firm perished due to lack of innovation was due to mismanagement and LBO rather than poor product and market was really missing the point.

And the last paragraph "Disruptive innovation is a theory about why businesses fail. It’s not more than that. It doesn’t explain change. It’s not a law of nature. It’s an artifact of history, an idea, forged in time; it’s the manufacture of a moment of upsetting and edgy uncertainty. Transfixed by change, it’s blind to continuity. It makes a very poor prophet"

I think its more than just that. It talks about how people adapt to changes and how the needs interact with supply of products, services and even resources. Thats how fracking and shale came about isnt it and author is saying it doesn't explain change? Saying disruptive innovation is a poor prophet is just inaccurate. It may be because the timeframe is off, observations are off or the space itself is off. I wouldn't shrug it off just like that...