ChromeOS ate a nontrivial part of Microsoft's OS business.
Android completely obliterated any chance of a market MS had for phones.
Chrome (and Firefox, which was effectively funded by Google for a long time) dethroned IE(and edge), almost to the point of irrelevance.
It did not disrupt Microsoft's business model - but it ate huge chunks of it. Where Google didn't venture (e.g. database & server software), Microsoft is still extracting monopoly rent. Where it did (mobile OS), no one wanted Microsoft's offering, regardless of getting free money with it.
Facebook and Google totally, completely, compete with each other. If you have on-line advertising spend, you decice on the facebook/google split. They are in exactly the same vertical - extremely directed and trackable on line advertising. Don't confuse "users" with "customers".
Intel's business model was expensive high margin CPUs to all. They still do for servers. It was most definitely disrupted in the consumer space because phones exist - many people for which it would have been unthinkable a few years ago to have no PC/Laptop today, only have a phone, or have a very loe end laptop (which Intel makes very little on).
> it was a new line of business opening up, due to changes in the market place - where a major player in a related marketplace failed to achieve dominance
You have just given the usual definition of disruption. I agree existing markets were not overtaken. Mobile phones disrupted the land line business, even though that one is still alive. Linux disrupted the proprietary OS bbusines, even though that one is still alive. Amazon disrupted commerce.
Facebook killed myspace, and yahoo participated in its own killing. And there's definitely disruption all over.
Facebook and Google don't really compete either - again, related, but different verticals, Googles existing business model wasnt really disrupted by Facebook appearing on the scene.
The majority of mobile processors prior to arm, wasn't Intel (it was 68k actually), again, no real disruption to the Intel Business Model.
In almost every case you've presented, you act as if a major player was displaced from a market within which they were the incumbent leader - but in every case but yahoo - it was a new line of business opening up, due to changes in the market place - where a major player in a related marketplace failed to achieve dominance - in the case of Intel, it was quite by choice - Intel saw early on that it couldn't make the margins needed to sustain itself in the mobile processor world - and while there keeps being talk about ARM coming to the non-mobile marketplace, there has been little to no actual incursion there.
The exception here is yahoo - Yahoo was pushed out of its core markets by the rise of google, where they competed head to head.