I think you mean HBO is still on those platforms, and Warner makes something less than $15 a month from it -- reportedly up to 50% less, at least for subscriptions through Amazon/Roku. At some point those deals expire, and then they will make zero on those subs, and, if there is no deal in place, Amazon and Roku will probably pull the apps.To be fair, they are not making zero dollars. HBO is on those platforms and they still make $15 a month from it. It's just that HBOMAX is not there.
Would they get more subscribers if HBOMAX was there? Probably.
Would it be a lot more subscribers?
Would it be enough more profit to offset the perceived danger of the extreme "tax" those platforms want to charge for HBOMAX?
Apparently Warner doesn't think so. Maybe they are playing chicken, maybe they are laughing at still raking in money from those platforms even without MAX being on them.
Meanwhile users like us are stuck in the middle. But I can't say I'd do things differently if I were Warner.
As I indicated above, I don't think it is unreasonable for Warner to try to get a better cut of those subs, especially given the ridiculous tax on those platforms. I just don't think Warner is being smart about how they are going about it. Sign a 1 year deal, get as many subs as you can, so you have more clout if you leave, and then renegotiate for better terms the next time around, when a lot of angry customers will complain to Amazon/Roku if their app goes away.
I get that Warner is under a lot of pressure to grow their OTT subs, so it just doesn't seem smart to hamstring yourself this way.