I'm not saying it applies here but isn't that the central thesis of The Innovator's Dilemma? Companies ignore new threats to their business model because changing would make them less profitable in the short term. The implication is reduced profitability, even in the short-term, even to pivot the business to better future opportunities, is painful to management so they avoid it.

In Apple's case cars are far afield from their normal expertise, which is computing. Cars are already a low-margin product for most of the industry. Apple's management may have decided they could be better off not participating at all. Or buying a non-controlling stake in some other EV or car company instead of distracting management with a completely alien business and product line.

But that's the thing, it just wasn't a financially good idea. People forget that financial engineering (not the cynical connotation) matters a lot, i.e. what your numbers need to look like to have a solid business that grows and attracts capital. The corporation itself is a "product" of the business.

Jeff Bezos had good product/leadership sense but above that, had genius financial engineering sense. He knew exactly what the company needed to look like on paper every step of the way for it to become the behemoth that it became.

Current market situation shows it's unlikely profitable, rather than hugely profitable

RIM would disagree. It plenty profitable before the iPhone came out. And Apple already knew building computers was profitable. They cracked how to build a computer the size of a phone.

There aren't any RIM-like companies in the car industry right now. And cars aren't really very useful as computers. Or at least not more useful than phones and tablets and laptops.

Because they found a new approach (smartphones). There's nothing new with cars.