jericoke, that's a good question, and I think it says a lot about the modern sponsorship tableau that each appears to be a bad fit for a F1 team for quite different reasons. On the other hand, Uber seems more likely to me to spring for Indycar series sponsorship than F1's because it's more American-based, rather than global-based, in its formal advertising preferences. (Everywhere else, they seem largely dependent on word-of-mouth... ...which is of course free!)
Google isn't interested because they'd generally be expected to put logos on (because teams use the sponsors they have to attract other sponsors). This is against Google policy - they only approve the use of their own logo on platforms they actually own. If they decided to make their own racing league, then you might see a Google team, but unless they buy F1 from Liberty, we won't see Google sponsorship there. The most that could be hoped for is for someone to be a Google partner, but that doesn't generally require money to change hands (simply attribution for the use of a Google product in developing something), thus not interesting to a F1 team's money-raising.
Uber, on the other hand, is heavily interested in sponsorships. Its current #1 focus on that score is primary sponsorship of NCAA (America's college athletics system). That might well be a bigger draw in the specific 16-25 American demographic than F1, and it's almost certainly cheaper than being a sponsor of F1 as a whole (which is what would be necessary to have equivalent breadth of coverage). Liberty might find Uber an interesting prospect, but I don't think Uber would settle for a F1 team. If it goes for motorsport at all, it'll want to sponsor the entire series.
Apple is different again. The parent company deliberately looks for a relatively small number of adverts, but places them in large and creative ways. F1 is... ...not noted for its creativity, and generally associated with PC sponsorships (especially given that F1 teams tend to be Windows and/or Linux (usually a mix of both), not MacOS, because the specialist software the teams use tend to be Windows and/or Linux). The increase in mobile phone working tends to be platform-agnostic, and since F1 doesn't use it for secure data processing like some companies do (the secure data tends to need a bigger bandwidth than mobile can do right now), bring-your-own-device, with apps that work on the major platform options, is what tends to get seen.
While a creative F1 team might be able to entice Apple despite all that, it would require a lot of luck, because their brand of creativity would need to fit in with their vision for the next line of product. Most Apple ads you see are actually from local or national Apple dealer networks. However, most of them simply don't have the budget to do F1.
In other words, Google is a bad fit for F1 teams because it doesn't do sponsorships.
Uber is a bad fit for F1 teams because they're too small in scale.
Apple is a bad fit for F1 teams, as they're seen as conventional and have relatively little use for Apple product - or just plain too expensive, depending which part of Apple marketing is the target.