The overloading of the word 'disruption' irks me terribly. It seems like everybody wants to be 'disruptive', when all they really mean is 'successful'.<p>Anyway, Christensen defines 'disruptive innovation' fairly rigorously, and it doesn't seem like their interpretation fits with his. Half the point of disruptive innovations is that, retrospectively, they were ignored and allowed to exist by incumbents for whatever reason, eventually toppling them. If they've been acquired then they're not disruptive anymore, are they?<p>Would Oculus Rift have been a disruptive innovation if it was left to grow? Would it have upended value networks? Maybe. Is it a disruptive innovation now that Facebook has acquired it? Well not according to Christensen's criteria for 'disruption'. The product could be called a radical innovation, but it's not disruptive.