Chrome as a whole (and not any particular feature) is disruptive.

Shanx, David T.: I think we are only disagreeing on the definition of disruptive technology.

Disruptive technologies typically underperform established products in mainstream markets (initially, that is).  However, they introduce new value propositions (features, benefits, not necesarily based on new technology) that appeal to fringe (of mainstream) customers.  These customers help drive the improvement of the new offering.  If that improvement trajectory is such that it the new offering can catch and overtake the established products, then the new technology is disruptive.

Nowhere is it said that any specific feature must be new technology; nowhere is it said that established product features (e.g., plug-ins, themes, font controls, etc.) must be present in the new offering (at first, anyway.)

The key is that the new offering gains traction with new (fringe) customers and then improves rapidly enough to overtake (and eventually displace) established offerings.  Access to "a 100 million users might see the browser link on the front page" is a darn good first swipe at connecting with new customers.  Offering them a super-easy-to-use browser with appealing features (even if those features are "nothing new" from an engineering perspective) could easily create the conditions for rapid early adoptions.  Then, if Google can sustain a steep improvement trajectory, we have the ingredients for disruption.