And her summary didn't include the theory's essence: that incumbents are captured by their present customers - even when they are 100% on top of the coming tech, they can't desert them, and can't see the new customers (which, to be fair, don't strictly exist yet).
I think his key background evidence is pretty strong: that technology improves faster than we can absorb it e.g. PCs are now faster than they need to be for most tasks. Although we do demand more of our PCs, they have improved at an even faster rate. This relates to the above theory in that we now that they are fast enough, we are willing to pay for some other quality - like portability. For businesses that have worked at improving the technology along the dimension that was in demand for a long time (e.g. speed), they have organized everything around this - R&D, manufacturing, marketing, positioning, sales, partnerships, even their release schedule. They are optimized for getting better at that dimension and selling that dimension. So.... when that dimension is no longer in demand, all their optimization works against them. It's difficult to change emphasis, both for engineering and marketing.
Right now, Intel - the inventor of the CPU (and of the integrated circuit, can you believe it?) - is putting its truly incredible resources, knowledge, talent, skill and market position into more power-efficient CPUs (instead of higher-performing) for smartphones.
But your smartphone doesn't use them.