> Reliable mass public transport is the best option

I agree, but I don't think that's actually going to replace cars and it doesn't serve everyone, such as the people who live far outside cities.

Even if the US and other car-centric countries started a serious effort on that today, it would take decades. During which people continue to use gasoline cars, and emitting more CO2 we will need to undo in the future. Electric cars make sense right now regardless of your perspective on trains (I like trains, and dislike cars, and I am sympathetic)

We already have car centric suburbia and its going to take decades to change that. We might as well switch to electric cars which are quieter and produce less air pollution rather than wait for thousands of homes to be rebuilt.

except that mass public transportation is never going to happen on the needed scale in the US; electric cars is the next best thing and much preferable to the current status quo

I absolutely am on board with the idea... but reliable mass public transport requires an entire country of cities to be redesigned (this is in a country that struggles to get zoning laws changed to move from single to multi-family housing in many places), we'll have self-driving cars first.

Hell, I think we'd get flying cars first. It's nearly impossible to touch anything that requires modifying suburbs or their streets, politically.

They are pushing companies (and universities and governments and everyone else) to abandon efforts to stop climate change.

This is not the question Apple is trying to answer.

If you're trying to expand the market of a company with such a broad reach already there aren't many markets big enough to move the needle on revenue. Real-estate, food, fashion and automotive are the only ones really significant enough to tackle, and of those, automotive isn't an unreasonable one to explore.

Unless you want a literal Apple Home.