there's certainly a place for applications that require continuous updates, I actively work on one, but I don't think "fire and forget" style is inherently bad

there's certainly a place for applications that require continuous updates, I actively work on one, but I don't think "fire and forget" style is inherently bad either. I built one (well, multiple, but I was personally fond of that one) and inherited one when someone left the company and I haven't had to touch the first since a minor update shortly after release and the second I never had to touch at all. Both still functioning and doing what they were intended to do. I don't think a client/group requiring a set and forget (well, not quite forget, but to be hands off) is necessarily a bad client nor is one that wants continuous updates a good one. In some cases, it could be reversed because the set and forget client who disappears was most likely able to clearly define requirements as they needed them and they had the foresight to include anything that might come along ahead of time (or probably more likely, their use case is rigid and doesn't change).