Believe me, cost has nothing to do with it, since it's only a tiny drop (no pun) in the bucket in terms of production coats.

So, to clear a few issues.

1- shipping in a waxy coating (like Cosmoline) ended years ago when the advent of container shipping eliminated the issue of sea water exposure and rust during transit.

2- the major makers use the same chain lube on their OEM and after market chains, and carefully select a product that will do the job without any other help, because they know that nobody is going to do much when building a new bike.

3- the biggest consideration in the product selection is preserving brand integrity and reputation for quality. They spend serious dough toward that end, and would not trade a few cents (if that) against earning a reputation for short chain life.

4- the above notwithstanding, they also make concessions to the market, and given the constant harping about sticky OEM lube, may move to a lighter product that doesn't create market resistance, even if it's not what their engineers might have preferred.

So, over the years, the choice of lube may have changed, but it was still driven by the need to do what it's supposed to do, namely ensure good chain performance and wear life.

I can't imagine a corporate stance that would imply "we use crap on our chains, and suggest you remove it and replace it with something better". Can you?

So, even though I produce an aftermarket chain lube, and have my preferences among what the various chain companies use OEM, I also know that it's serious stuff intended to properly lube the chain.

However, there's more to chain lube than chain life, and some may want to strip the OEM lube if they prefer a dry or wax lube that may not be compatible. But that's a personal choice based on various factors, not because the OEM stuff won't do the job.