This essay seems to be built on a flawed analogy.
Clayton Christensen’s model of disruption (or models, counting his low end version) involves innovation by both the incumbent and disruptor. The disruptor’s innovation is immediately appealing to the low end of the market while the incumbent is focused on the high end.
His example of Hong Kong factories manufacturing Fairchild chips doesn’t fit this template even though he claims it does. It’s just targeting the low end of the market with lower prices. That’s just basic business competition, it’s not disruption as he defined it in this piece.
Side note, I’ve never been a big fan of his giant block quotes, especially when he does not bother to summarize them much. It’s asking the reader to connect to the dots and arrive at the insights he is supposed to be providing.)
Not to be a hater, but this is Ben Thomspon's style. Dial up the word count until people think your analysis is comprehensive, to disguise the fact that you're not saying anything substantive.
I think you're being unfair: try steelmanning. Assume that he is genuinely giving his best and most comprehensive analysis of the situation. It might be a flawed analysis, but at least give credit that it's a genuine effort.
The main flaw of the analysis I can see is that he is seeing patterns that aren't there - being used to analyzing complex international economics, and then being confronted with something as simple as this pump and dump scheme.