I wonder: were past disruptive efforts more sucsessfull in unseating incumbents ? And is Clayton Christensen theory responsible for bigger companies' better defense against disruption ?
This is something that seems to be ignored in this discussion. There's a widespread belief that large companies are stupid and unaware of what's going on around them. However, the boom in easily available knowledge benefits everyone, including large corporations. They may be "disrupted" but they are also much more aware that it's happening and can take steps to adapt to it and thrive in a new environment.