It was a tech disruption. NeedMoreTea said a significant disruption requires "regulation and money" and while I agree in the general case, the iPhone is an example that shows that "requires" is overstating it.

An existence proof that it "pure" capitalism can cause positive disruptive change, even if that's a rare case. And I write "pure" in scare quotes because Apple did benefit from a raft of laws and regulations (police, building codes, court system, patents, etc) -- but not to a greater or lesser degree than the other participants in the phone ecosystem.