Hmm. I suppose all open source looks that way if it doesn't get regular funding/attention.
Apache does house a lot of abandonware. They had some relevance as recently as 6-7 years ago but they've been largely replaced by nginx I think. That being said, I view them like the local soup-kitchen - important to have and maintain, but not where I want to go for a 5-star meal.
These projects don't give the apache foundation an appearance of importance or relevance, rather they make it look rather rundown.
Obivously the main "alternative" is for the original company to simply shut down the product/service, which can do irreperable harm to a company when they have high-profile customers who are utterly dependent on a service.
Another alternative is to use an open-source foundation that's directly managed by the original company, which is what Microsoft did with its DotNet Foundation ( https://dotnetfoundation.org/ ) - and while Microsoft's legal team ensures the foundation is "legally" independent, in practice we know all the significant shots are being called from within Microsoft-proper; but it does give us some modest reassurances that .NET won't suddenly return to being closed-source overnight.
Another alternative is to not open-source it and to instead sell it off to another company that can maintain it while still being profitable - this is what Adobe did with Flash: they sold it all off to Samsung because their Harman division wanted to continue using Flash for embedded/automotive UX work. This approach can work, but doesn't benefit the wider ecosystem the way that open-sourcing does - and something something shareholder value and return-on-investment by selling rather than writing-it-off...
What companies won't do is let any of their engs that are passionate about a project split-off from the company to run and maintain it, le sigh.