The point of the of course very different hammer example was that it’s the same contract and it’s a perfectly moral contract: give money, receive a thing, and that’s it. You seem to be arguing that they should keep doing things for you because they can and it benefits you, and I agree that they can and it benefits you, but it’s also at a cost to them, which I don’t think they have a moral obligation to pay unless that was part of the sale to you.

Maybe communication is a root issue here. I think both of us could agree that they should make sure people know before buying whether they’ll be getting updates, and for how long.