All of the points that [Professor Lepore] raised were not just wrong, but they were lies. Ours is the only theory in business that actually has been … - Clayton Christensen

We contest the conclusions of scholars such as Tushman and Anderson (1986), who have argued that incumbent firms are most threatened by attacking entrants when the innovation in question destroys, or does not build upon, the competence of the firm. We observe that established firms, though often at great cost, have led their industries in developing critical competence-destroying technologies, when the new technology was needed to meet existing customers’ demands.

[There is a distinguishes between] low-end disruption which targets customers who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high end of the market and "new-market disruption" that targets customers that could previously not be served profitably by the incumbent.

Our findings support many of the conclusions of the resource dependence theorists, who contend that a firm's scope for strategic change is strongly bounded by the interests of external entities (customers, in this study) who provide the resources the firm needs to survive.