It is alluding to the use of 'maintenance' in the sofware industry as a EUPHEMISM for repair. Many years ago, fixes to buggy software were sent out titled as "patches", a fairly accurate term for fixing something that didn't hold up under actual use. Then they started calling them "maintenance releases", or sometimes "interim updates" or "security updates" or such; these are fixes sent out to tide the users over until the next official (numbered version) release. Whatever they call these interim releases, they wouldn't be sending them out if the software hadn't already failed at something it was supposed to be able to do.
The article seems to suggest that software makers should quit pretending their software as released is perfect, and rather to better capitalize on the repair end of the business, as auto dealers do. The analogy is less than perfect, as auto parts do wear out and have to be replaced. However, when software fails, nothing "wore out" or "broke"; the bug was there from the beginning, but perhaps not discovered for years, until some unforeseen scenario tripped it up ("crashed" the program, as we used to say). So software as such should never actually require "maintenance", although ancillary data such as tables might need to be "updated" to reflect new realities (tax rates, for example). However, most subsequent "versions" (aka "upgrades") of software combine adding new features with fixing (or, euphemistically, "enhancing") existing ones.