Unless you know magic exists and works, postulating "magic" fails Occam's Razor, since you're needlessly postulating that magic exists as part of your explanation. The hypothesis that an iPhone works by elecricity and clever engineering- since we have similar objects like TVs that work that way- is favored by Occam's razor.
You're right that it doesn't seem like you can apply Occam's razor to the falling rock. Really it seems like an example of Bayesian reasoning: we know the prior probability of someone coming anywhere near a falling space rock is very, very small. We know the probability of a piece of grit falling out of a chute is orders of magnitude larger. Shakey video evidence by itself barely shifts our confidence that it actually was a meteor.
You're right that it doesn't seem like you can apply Occam's razor to the falling rock. Really it seems like an example of Bayesian reasoning: we know the prior probability of someone coming anywhere near a falling space rock is very, very small. We know the probability of a piece of grit falling out of a chute is orders of magnitude larger. Shakey video evidence by itself barely shifts our confidence that it actually was a meteor.