Ubuntu was focused too long on markets that simply aren't viable from a fiscal standpoint (See: Ubuntu Phone or much of the excellent desktop work they've done). Redhat meanwhile has been continuing to focus on the enterprise and their revenue continues to grow.
I think Ubuntu are just going with a more long term approach.
RedHat just leveraged Oracle compatibility, if you needed Oracle RedHat was and is the only sane choice; but remove the need for Oracle, and Ubuntu is then a very strong competitor.
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/31/no-cost-rhel-d...
Also, Desktop Self-support Subscription (1 year) is $49 USD.
Here is the press release from 2014 when Redhat took on CentOS officially: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-c...
Packages in point releases may sometimes force some packages higher in the dependency tree to be rebuilt, or perhaps may change the dependency chain in some way. Red Hat likely takes care to release only when this doesn't violate stability guarantees for the stuff they support.
If there was no CentOS, I'd say you could end up in a situation where EPEL and IUS (just to mention the most popular - almost indispensable - external repos out there) would be broken for the lastest point release for a while. That would be bad for users.
Red Hat customers are less likely to be using them. After all, if you're going to use unsupported packages, why do it on RHEL instead of CentOS which is mostly the same minus support?
(Also, you can follow the CentOS CR repository if you really want to keep up more closely with upstream RHEL.)
CentOS is essentially official. I'm not exactly sure how the relationship works.