I also found the following section from the article especially thought-provoking:
> He second-guessed the wording of the label, but never the theory. Even after he changed his terminology to disruptive innovation, he saw flaws.
> “What we didn’t anticipate, and what in many ways was a fault of mine,” he told Quartz.com in 2016, “was that the term disruption has so many different connotations in the English language, that it allows people to justify whatever they want to do as, ‘Oh, this is disruptive,’ and they don’t ever read the book. The population of people where the fewest have read the book are venture capitalists. They are arrogant and smart and why do they need to read something?”
> He wished he’d created something less expressive. He began to discuss type 1 innovations and type 2 innovations, with a nod to Daniel Kahneman, because he believed those terms were vague enough to force people to read and understand his work more closely.
It makes me think about the way complex ideas get distorted and re-interpreted as they get repeated, like in a game of Telephone.