Mark Zuckerberg made the remark during The Joe Rogan Experience, episode 2255, published on January 10, 2025—not in a new 2026 interview. His criticism was broader than Apple’s product design: he attacked the company’s control of the iPhone ecosystem, App Store economics, accessory integration and limits affecting Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses.
What Zuckerberg said about Apple
During the wide-ranging, nearly three-hour conversation with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg acknowledged the iPhone’s enormous impact before arguing that Apple has struggled to produce another comparable breakthrough.
His central line was that Apple had not “really invented anything great in a while.” He contrasted Steve Jobs’ creation of the iPhone with what he characterized as Apple “sitting on it 20 years later.” He also questioned whether iPhone sales were still growing, suggesting that slower product improvements encourage people to keep their phones longer.
The comments appeared in a broader discussion of Apple’s rules and business model. Zuckerberg complained about what he considered arbitrary platform restrictions, Apple’s commission on digital transactions and the company’s ability to use iOS to give its own accessories advantages. He specifically cited AirPods and said Meta had not received comparable access for its Ray-Ban smart glasses.
#1 Best Overall
Read the episode transcript or the contemporaneous report on Zuckerberg’s Apple remarks.
This was also a dispute over platform power
Zuckerberg’s remarks make more sense in the context of the rivalry between Apple and Meta. Apple controls the operating system, distribution system and payment infrastructure used by iPhone apps. Meta depends on that system for its social, messaging, advertising and subscription businesses, while also trying to build hardware that could eventually reduce the smartphone’s central role.
The App Store argument
Zuckerberg referred to Apple’s commonly cited 15%–30% commission range as a major cost imposed on developers. The phrase “30% Apple tax” is shorthand, not a universal rate: the applicable percentage can vary by developer program, subscription duration, transaction type, region and legal requirements.
The disagreement is therefore about more than a percentage. Apple controls distribution, payments, review rules and access to users. That gives Apple substantial influence over competing business models, including Meta’s digital products. Apple’s official developer program page is the appropriate reference for current enrollment terms, rather than assuming every transaction carries the same fee.
Why AirPods mattered
AirPods were an example of Zuckerberg’s argument that Apple gives its own accessories deeper iPhone integration than rivals. Apple controls iOS and can build its hardware around system-level pairing, switching and other features.
That does not mean third-party earbuds cannot work with iPhones. The distinction is between basic compatibility and the deeper integration available to Apple’s own products. Zuckerberg’s complaint was about competitive parity, not an absolute ban on rival earbuds.
The connection to Meta’s smart glasses
Meta’s Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses depend on a smartphone for functions such as connectivity, notifications, cameras, assistants and related services. Zuckerberg said Apple would not provide Meta the same kind of access that Apple can use for its own accessories.
That is a claim about access and integration, not proof that Apple has blocked all Meta-glasses functionality. The glasses can work with iPhones in supported configurations. The larger policy question is whether smartphone platforms should expose more capabilities to competing hardware makers—and whether doing so would weaken security, privacy, battery management or the smoothness of Apple’s integrated system.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesHas Apple actually stopped innovating?
That depends on what “innovation” means. There are at least three different standards:
- New mass-market categories: products that change ordinary consumer behavior, as the iPhone did.
- Technical advances: major improvements inside an existing category, such as processors, cameras, health sensors or operating systems.
- Integrated ecosystems: hardware and software that work together in a commercially durable way.
Zuckerberg’s criticism is strongest under the first definition. Apple has not produced another product with the iPhone’s cultural, commercial and platform impact. The iPhone 16 line, Apple Watch Series 10 and AirPods 4 introduced or continued improvements, but they were product updates rather than wholly new categories. Apple’s 2024 product and results announcement documents those newer launches.
The claim is much weaker if innovation includes engineering advances and new product categories. Apple introduced Vision Pro in 2024 as a spatial-computing device with eye tracking, hand tracking, room mapping and custom silicon using a dual-chip architecture. Apple silicon, computational photography, Apple Watch health features and the company’s work across wearables are also meaningful technical efforts.
Vision Pro does not automatically disprove Zuckerberg’s point. A product can be technically ambitious without becoming a mass-market breakthrough. Nor does Apple’s own description prove that Vision Pro has achieved broad commercial success. It is better understood as evidence that “Apple has invented nothing great” is too absolute when read literally, while the narrower argument—that Apple has not matched the iPhone’s transformative importance—is defensible.
What Apple’s financial results show
Apple’s financial record does not settle a debate about innovation, but it does challenge the idea that the iPhone business was simply collapsing.
| Apple fiscal period | iPhone net sales | Total net sales |
|---|---|---|
| Fiscal 2024 | Approximately $201.2 billion | Approximately $391.0 billion |
| Fiscal 2025 | Approximately $209.6 billion | Approximately $416.2 billion |
These figures come from Apple’s fiscal 2024 financial statements and fiscal 2025 financial statements. They are fiscal-year figures and should not be treated as direct equivalents to calendar-year smartphone shipment data.
Revenue growth demonstrates commercial strength, not necessarily breakthrough innovation. Conversely, an innovative product can perform poorly commercially. Apple’s results show that its strategy remains financially powerful; they do not prove that recent iPhones delivered an iPhone-scale technological leap.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What Zuckerberg gets right—and what he overstates
Zuckerberg is right that Apple’s platform control is central to the dispute. The company decides how apps are distributed, how payments work and which hardware capabilities are available to competing products. That matters to Meta because it competes with Apple both in digital services and in the emerging market for wearables.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
He also raises a legitimate distinction between refining a mature product and creating a new category. Apple’s recent products may be commercially successful and technically sophisticated without representing the kind of societal shift associated with the original iPhone.
But his wording is plainly subjective and strategically interested. Zuckerberg is not a neutral product reviewer: Meta is developing its own hardware and would benefit if Apple made the iPhone more open to rival accessories. His suggestion that iPhone sales might be flat or declining was an estimate expressed in conversation, not an official Apple statement or independently established conclusion. Likewise, calling Apple’s commission a universal 30% charge oversimplifies a rate structure that varies by circumstance.
The bottom line
Zuckerberg’s January 2025 comments were both a critique of Apple’s mature-product strategy and a competitive argument against Apple’s control of the iPhone ecosystem. Apple has not repeated the iPhone’s original disruptive impact, but it has continued to develop new hardware, silicon and services—including Vision Pro and major advances within existing product lines.
The most accurate reading is not that Apple has stopped innovating. It is that Apple’s strongest innovations are now more often incremental, technical or ecosystem-focused, while Zuckerberg wants readers to judge the company by a tougher standard: whether it has created another transformative platform—and whether it should be allowed to control so much of the one it already built.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
