Accrescent isn't the future

[CrypticWorm]

@LogicSnoop

For me, the plan to rewrite the entire client has always been a nonsensical decision, since there aren’t any issues on GitHub labeled as “bug”. I’m already aware that the early versions of Accrescent had a lot of bugs, such as update-related bugs (I’m talking about 2 and a half years ago, when I installed GrapheneOS and Accrescent). Because of that, I also don’t think it should take more than 6 months to rewrite the client app

The client rewrite is complete and was shipped with 0.27.0, it’s not what’s being worked on right now. It took far less than 6 months.

There were still a lot of bugs. Look at all the issues that got closed at the end of October 2025. Issues are just not labelled very consistently. This is all detailed in the blog post and the changelogs linked from there. Another reason for the rewrite was:

a correct and long-term sustainable codebase

---

@LogicSnoop

It’s pretty funny how they introduced the stable API, and in the Ente issue you are linked to, it said that the app would be submitted to the app store, even though Accrescent has a stable API. The response was written on April 1, 2026. So… can I presume that Accrescent’s API is not actually in a stable version?

You’re mixing up the app store API/directory service with the app publishing API. Accrescent currently doesn’t have an app publishing API to automate the publishing process. It’s part of what’s currently being worked on. The app store API is the API used by clients to fetch app metadata:

• Which apps are available in the store
• Whether an app is compatible with the device
• App descriptions and icons
• How large an app is
• Whether updates are available
• Where to download an app’s APKs

---

@LogicSnoop

Today is June 2, 2026, and in the past few months, I haven’t seen this full-time development.

Pretty sure lberrymage has confirmed on Matrix that he’s working full time on it. If you mean that it doesn’t seem like it from the amount of work done, see @anonymous619’s reply.

---

@LogicSnoop

Obviously, I’m not looking at the user interface to determine whether something has been done or not. I never said that.

I was responding to you saying that:

@LogicSnoop

The developers made many promises that the app itself would be improved in the near future

@LogicSnoop

In the ‘Roadmap’ section under the short-term timeline, it states that in the next month, some new features (such as a log description and a screenshot for every listed app) would be added to the Accrescent app. However, the blog was created on 11/08/2025, and today is 20/05/2026. I personally still don’t see these features.

---

@LogicSnoop

Accrescent has been in a pilot phase for more than two and a half years I though it’s been even longer (since I installed it for the first time two and a half years ago). That’s also pretty funny, since other projects that started later than Accrescent have achieved an stable and complete application.

Building an app store from scratch and getting it right on the privacy and security fronts is not an easy task, especially since lberrymage is basically working on this alone.

Which projects are you referring to?

---

@LogicSnoop

the next steps of the project are a bit confusing

This is all explained clearly in the latest update blog post, there are multiple GitHub roadmaps to track progress and the dev is responsive to questions on Matrix. How is it confusing?

[plus-subzero]

The only way this gets off the ground is if GrapheneOS, which has a strong interest in seeing Accrescent succeed, agrees to keep the lights on. This mirrors the relationship that exists, or existed, between JMP and Snikket, where the success of the latter made the former slightly more viable out of the box. GrapheneOS isn’t building its own F-Droid alternative any time soon. By contrast, JMP’s choice was largely political, given that they could have spun off their own XMPP server for less. Ultimately, it’s just easier for GrapheneOS to raise money than it is for Accrescent.