To The Moon

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast highlighted several grievances he has with $Apple(AAPL)$, and as I reflect on his remarks, I think they point to a larger narrative about the competition and dynamics in the tech industry. While Zuckerberg’s criticisms were blunt, they also underscored his belief that Apple is coasting on past success while stifling innovation from competitors like $Meta Platforms, Inc.(META)$.

In my opinion, Zuckerberg’s comments carry weight, particularly when he calls out Apple for its App Store policies and closed ecosystem. However, the tension between Meta and Apple is more than just philosophical—it’s deeply rooted in financial and strategic conflicts.

Zuckerberg’s main jab at Apple is that the company hasn’t been truly innovative since the days of Steve Jobs. He acknowledges the iPhone as one of the greatest inventions of all time, but he argues that Apple is now "just sitting on it" rather than driving transformative change in the tech space.

I partially agree with this sentiment. While Apple has consistently delivered incremental improvements to its products, such as the iPhone, MacBooks, and AirPods, there’s been a noticeable absence of groundbreaking innovation akin to the debut of the iPhone. For a company valued at over $3 trillion, the lack of bold new product categories might suggest a reliance on its established ecosystem rather than a push into uncharted territory.

One of Zuckerberg’s biggest gripes is with Apple’s App Store policies, particularly the 30% commission Apple takes on certain transactions. Rogan also chimed in, calling the “Apple Tax” insane. I share their frustration to some extent. This fee structure has been widely criticized by developers and companies alike for years, and it’s no secret that Apple’s walled garden makes it difficult for competitors to gain an even footing.

From Meta’s perspective, Apple’s restrictions have had tangible financial consequences. Zuckerberg mentioned that Apple’s policies wiped out billions of dollars in advertising revenue for Meta. That’s a huge blow, especially considering how reliant Meta is on digital ad revenue.

Zuckerberg also pointed out that Apple’s ecosystem unfairly advantages its own hardware, such as AirPods, by limiting the ability of other companies to integrate seamlessly with the iPhone. If Apple were to open up its protocols, it could lead to a surge in competition and innovation in the accessories market.

While Zuckerberg paints Apple’s closed ecosystem as a liability, I think it’s also one of the company’s greatest strengths. Apple’s ability to tightly integrate hardware, software, and services creates a user experience that’s difficult to match. This ecosystem lock-in is why so many consumers remain loyal to Apple, even as competitors like Samsung and Google offer compelling alternatives.

However, I do see Zuckerberg’s point about the long-term risks of this approach. If Apple continues to prioritize its own ecosystem at the expense of broader compatibility and innovation, it could eventually alienate users and developers. The tech industry is incredibly dynamic, and as Zuckerberg aptly noted, “If you just don’t do a good job for like 10 years, eventually, you’re just going to get beat by someone.”

The rivalry between Meta and Apple isn’t just about App Store fees or closed ecosystems—it’s also about divergent visions for the future of technology. Apple has positioned itself as a privacy-first company, introducing features like App Tracking Transparency (ATT), which gives users more control over their data. While this is great for consumers, it has significantly impacted Meta’s advertising business, forcing the company to rethink its approach to personalized ads.

Meta, on the other hand, is betting heavily on the metaverse and augmented reality (AR). Zuckerberg envisions a future where physical and digital worlds blend seamlessly, with Meta’s neural interface wristbands and AR glasses playing a central role. Apple is also investing in AR, as evidenced by the Vision Pro headset, but its approach feels more cautious and controlled compared to Meta’s ambitious, open-ended vision.

I think Zuckerberg’s criticisms about Apple’s innovation—or lack thereof—are worth considering. While Apple continues to dominate with its existing products, competitors like Meta are exploring entirely new frontiers. For instance, Meta’s focus on neural interfaces and immersive AR experiences shows a willingness to take risks and shape the future, even if the technology isn’t quite ready for mass adoption yet.

That said, Apple’s strategy of refining existing products and maintaining a closed ecosystem has proven successful so far. The question is whether this approach will remain viable in the face of rising competition and increasing regulatory pressure.

In my view, Zuckerberg’s dislike for Apple stems from both financial frustration and a deeper philosophical divide. Meta sees itself as a disruptor, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in AR and the metaverse, while Apple appears content to perfect its existing ecosystem.

While I don’t think Apple is “off its game” as Zuckerberg suggests, I do think the company needs to demonstrate that it’s still capable of leading innovation in the tech industry. If Apple doesn’t take bold steps soon, it risks being perceived as a company that thrives on inertia rather than creativity.

What do you think? Is Zuckerberg right about Apple’s lack of innovation, or is he underestimating the company’s strategy?

@MillionaireTiger @Tiger_comments @Daily_Discussion @CaptainTiger @TigerSG @TigerEvents

Disclaimer: This is a general trade analysis and not financial advice. Always conduct your own research before making any investment decisions.