The book as a whole has aged pretty well (with the caveat that I haven't read it in over a decade). My recollection of the book is that it tended to treat disrupting an entrenched player as a panacea and being disrupted as a death knell. It was somewhat un-nuanced in its disruptor/disrutptee split, and doesn't really look much at why some of the disrupted companies remained perfectly fine and why some of disruptors floundered.

Still a great book and it was highly influential on how I think about business. He's also written a bunch of books after that book that may or may not cover some of those points.