What I find quite unfair is that many people say that they don't have the technical skills to effectively contribute to the project, let alone develop or maintain any alternative, yet accuse the systemd team (or the GNOME team, or the NetworkManager team, or the XFCE team, or whatever) of producing sub-standard software. Given the self-asserted lack of skills, on which basis such a severe judgement is done?
Can we please go back to trusting each other, praising who actually do some useful work or at least avoiding open attacks to them? Technical disagreement is welcome, but it has to be backed by some skills to be useful.
If you car requires more knowledge to maintain than you have, you can get a different car, pay someone to maintain it or get a bike. Those are the only options I see. I don't see how init is any different than a car. You have those same options. I'm sure someone somewhere is paying RH or canonical or in house devs/admins to maintain init scripts for their application stacks.
It isn't a matter of managing init scripts - that's easy. Continually updating a distro to use your init system of choice is a wholly different matter. I can change the oil in my car. I can't replace the transmission.
Users != developers
I am not a developer. I'm an administrator. I know enough C to be able to poke around source code and understand what is happening when I get an error, but not enough of it or anything else to maintain an init system. A lot of admins don't know this much. A lot of desktop users don't know this much.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall sentiment here - but it's not so simple as "If the users of the product liked it, they'd maintain it" - sometimes they don't have the skills required to. Not everyone who drives is a mechanic, etc.