It isabout 20 years since the book The Innovators Dilemma, When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clayton Christensen was first published. The term disruptive innovation has since increased dramatically in popularity. Especially within startup communities the term disruptive seems to be the (not so) secret password to let you in through the entrance and key to even be considered a viable candidate for VC funding. Given the broad use of the term, disruptive does not seem to be that disruptive anymore. But what can really be regarded as disruptive innovation and how is it defined? Let Clayton himself explain. In an interview by Harvard Business Review he explains the basic concept. How does then all today labeled disruptive match the definition here given? Is the original message lost if we fail to understand what may really be disruptive?