> Why would google continue maintaining chrome if they can no longer derive any benefit from it?

That is unrelated to the sentence you quote: if people can use Google Chrome for free, they don't pay for a browser. But if Chrome disappeared, they would still need a browser. Maybe they would pay if they didn't have a free choice?

> No, the contention is that people will go for free browsers that violate their privacy or monetize them somehow, not some future where all browsers cost money.

If there are more browsers instead of a monopoly, then websites will work on the paid, secure browser that I will use, so I'm happy. I don't want to prevent people from using bad software: I want to make it possible for companies to build good software.

By not using Chromium today, many times the websites don't work correctly because devs don't care, because Chromium is a monopoly. I say split it! Then websites will have to work on more than 1 browser.

> Remember when whatsapp was also $1/year, ostensibly for similar reasons? How did that go?

It was a huge success? WhatsApp is still a huge success.