Anyway, it's hard to argue Apple didn't cannibalize on its own iPod sales when it introduced the iPhone, and with some mild success. Not all companies seem willing to do that.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you just sed disrupt for cannibalize, the argument makes more sense.
According to his theory, there are two types of innovation: disruptive and sustaining. Disruptive innovation creates new markets by applying a different set of values. Sustaining innovation merely improves a product in relation to competion in its current market.
So I believe the authors do know what the word disruptive mean and are very deliberate in using it instead of innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
EDIT: Clarified my point in the wake of downvotes.
"From there, Cook tackled a much-discussed topic in recent quarters: whether or not the iPad is cannibalizing sales of traditional PCs. “I think that iPad has cannibalized some Mac sales,” he conceded. “And the way that we already view cannibalization is, we prefer we do it than have somebody else do it.” Because of that, he added, “We never want to hold back one of our teams from building the absolute greatest thing, even if it takes some sales from another product area.” "
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apples-Tim-Cook...
Its easier to say this but developing a product (iPhone) which could easily eat up the momentum of your best selling product (iPod) is a huge gamble by all means.
By the way - even if iPad sales are higher than (Apple) desktop sales, and if iPad sales are on the rise and desktop sales on in decline, please do not assume that desktop sales are taking a hit because of iPads.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/16/ios-devices-in-2011-vs-macs...
OTOH, they had a huge growth in Mac sales too.
Desktops are taking a hit from desktops!
There are still acres of desktop real estate which is going to be replaced with more desktops.
Looking at this at a high level, there is actually pretty much sod all difference for the average user in the last 5-6 years technology-wise on a "desktop PC". They are just not buying them because nothing is compelling them to upgrade as they are fine as they are.
If there was a technological leap then we might see something but for most users, a 5-6 year old desktop would run the latest and greatest version of Windows fine.
Tablets are going to be a short lived "experiment" which will dry up in time, much as they always have been (Apple are far from being the first tablet vendor). Microsoft may have the answer to that in a hybrid device but we'll see.
I'm not saying desktops are dying, just that they're no longer 'the default' they once were.
First of all, I'm pretty sure the notebook market is not being completely destroyed by tablets. Yeah, tablets are blowing up, and yeah, notebook sales are probably taking a hit, but lets be real. This claim is grossly exaggerated to the point that it is just not true. The notebook market has not been destroyed.
And disrupting itself? Really? Identifying a new product that has the potential to be hugely successful and profitable while possibly taking a small slice out the sales of an existing product means Apple is disrupting itself? Another word to describe this is 'innovation'. And anyway, I'm not even sure iPads are hurting Apple's notebook sales. I haven't done my research, but I've heard that it may in fact be the other way around - that the Macbook Air is hurting iPad sales.
Seems like the author just picked up the latest buzzword, and he's a bit fuzzy on what it really means. Apple is undoubtedly innovative and fantastic at what they do, but please stop fluffing up disruptive.