Please make Graphene pretty, because normal people don't care about security

I have read the thread over time, which seems to have attracted a lot of discussion, with a lot of interest, and from my perspective, it seems that there are 2-3 different camps when it comes to this topic at this time. The camps are as follows:

1. People who think GrapheneOS needs to change its default apps and add XYZ things in order to make it more "attractive" to other potential users. This camp considers this to be of great importance.

2. People who think nothing should change, think that people who have an issue with how the default apps look or function should just DIY it and not complain.

3. People who realize that improvements can be made to the overall looks of some of the default AOSP apps which are dated, but would rather the team prioritize security and privacy features over spending time on that aspect of the experience.

From my perspective, there's validity to all 3 sides. As someone who's used GrapheneOS for years and have an intimate understanding of the work that goes into it, and why the priorities are what they are, here's what I think:

Some of the default AOSP apps are awful. Most are obviously stuck in a different era when it comes to their appearence, and it shows. Most of the OS follows the latest material guidelines, and that's a stark contrast to something like the default SMS app which is the AOSP app for that which hasn't seen aesthetic improvements in years.

Some of those AOSP apps can be "saved", and can be modified to update their appearance. They otherwise work fine. Other apps (the SMS app and Gallery app are such examples) are probably best completely replaced with something better that meets the project's requirements. Either something built from scratch, or an existing project that GrapheneOS would have to audit and test extensively before including it in the OS.

Any such replacement app, whether built in-house or via an existing compatible open source project would need to at least have the same functionality that the current apps do. "But these apps are ancient, and they're garbage! Surely any app does better than those!", I hear you say, but you would be wrong. A lot of apps that might seem like viable replacements don't implement all of the necessary intents to become a replacement for a default app in the OS, no matter how nice it looks, or has features one might like. Great care would need to be taken to ensure that switching out the AOSP app with another one doesn't lead to a usability or functionality downgrade in these ways.

To address camp number 2, I don't think it's correct to say that any gripes one might have with the appearence or UX of clearly outdated apps is unwarranted. Those apps can be improved. GrapheneOS has always said that it wants to improve them. That's still on the roadmap.

That said, to address camp number 1, it goes without saying that the project has to prioritize. Those priorities have to also be adjusted as things happen in real time. I'm sure there are people in this very forum who would rather see the messaging app get a material 3 overhaul rather than the latest 3 major security features added in GrapheneOS; I truly get that. However, GrapheneOS is a project running on around 250k devices, based on recent rough estimations. Prioritization based on security and privacy features has to come before "prettification", and that doesn't necessarily have to mean that making things look nicer isn't important. It just means that at this given time, the team's resources are best allocated elsewhere.

Then, we come to things that are entirely subjective. Things such as whether the icons for the default apps are pretty or ugly, and what kind of apps should come bundled with an OS. I personally like the icons. I understand someone else might not. I also understand someone will dislike them no matter what the color of the icons ends up being. That's the nature of things.

When it comes to what kind of apps should come with the OS to make it suitable for "normal" people, it is incredibly subjective, and there isn't really a great model to look at either. There are phones that come with dozens of pre-installed apps, including a compass app in some cases, if you can believe it. Who's to say what should be included, and what shouldn't? Should a calendar app be included? If the answer is yes, then what kind of calendar app should it be? A purely offline one? An offline one with syncing capabilities? One tied to a specific service? In the vast majority of cases it makes sense to let people make their own choices based on what they use, rather than the OS making the choice for them.

Perhaps in the future, there could be a vetted list of apps that could be presented in the setup wizard that one could choose to install to "simplify" the setup process for someone who wants additional apps but isn't very specific about what those apps should be. It's something to think about. Is it as vital as some people are saying here, I don't really think so. But hey, I could be wrong.

At the end of the day, I understand where all of you are coming from, and your different perspectives are reasonable from various points of view, but I would like to ask that we keep the discussion on this thread and others civil, friendly, and productive. At the end of the day, this is literally about bundled apps and icons.

Additionally, I would like to ask that people not present their nitpicks as a world-shattering be-all-end-all things that are needed for GrapheneOS to succeed. GrapheneOS is entering its 10th year in 2024, and the userbase has been on a steady increase for years. GrapheneOS is currently leading the charge in multiple respects when it comes to privacy and security and is helping bring some of that to the Android ecosystem as a whole. There will always be things to improve, but I would ask your patience and understanding regarding the timeline.