Well, fair enough, but I still think he's manipulating history to make a cheap point, and I didn't find the article to be particularly convincing. After reading this illuminating article my bullshit detector goes wild almost every time I see any disruption talk come up in pieces like this. The reason I found it to be particularly bullshit in this case is that from my understanding, IBM went into the PC market because that was the major opportunity for growth at the time, and it really made sense. But their core competence was still mainframes, and business solutions. Once the PC boom was over, they had much less reason to stay in an increasingly competitive industry, and instead went back to focusing on their main strengths. Is that reinvention? If anything, I'd argue that they were just flexibly adapting to the times, and took advantage of an opportunity, but didn't necessarily change their core values.