it relies a lot on their servers which adds a level of centralization to this wallet and i never like it when the "wallet" is taking fees whenever the user wants to send coins even though it is very small. there are some trade-offs but they are at least very transparent about it so that is a good sign.
the wallet is also open source and can be compiled and run from the source code instead of downloading it from google play which is another positive sign.

all in all i think it is a good LN wallet but i still think there isn't any "best" LN wallets available yet.

Yep. Probably a reasonable amount of fee since they do the channel handling I guess? Percentage based fees can suck but I guess lightning is mostly for smaller transactions anyway.

Definitely not the best as it's mostly subjective, but I'd say it's the easiest at the moment as far as I know.

No doubt the fees and privacy is a downside. But I guess these are the sacrifices for having an ultra mega nooby friendly service, as so the user doesn't need to care about nodes and servers and such, just easily make LN transactions almost like doing on-chain transactions. What do you think? Are there possible ways of handling things without sacrificing ease-of-use?

I don't necessarily have an issue with the fees. They are high by bitcoin standards, but low when compared to using a credit card. My concern is more that the wallet could charge fees higher than what is advertised via intermediary LN nodes. 

I do see LN wallets in the future that are user friendly. I would predict we will see user-friendly desktop LN wallets before mobile wallets because coding mobile software is somewhat more complex than desktop software, and mobile OS will restrict what apps can do more than what macOS and Windows.

Over the long term, I would predict there are a handful of fairly large LN node operators that most end users will connect to, and will compete with, and connect to each other. The topology would somewhat resemble that of airport routes, but with many more routes.

With the above being said, I would envision future wallets LN wallets to connect to nodes with some kind of standardized URI that is unique to LN. I think most users will need to connect to one of the major hubs, and those that connect to multiple hubs will force each hub to compete on price. Something similar to what Phoenix does, except the user can choose which nodes to connect to.

I think LN wallets will use seeds, similar to what Phoenix uses, but will also automatically backup channel states to cloud storage during and after each transaction. This is important because without this, if you lose access to your wallet file, you will have no way to protect yourself against your counterparty from closing a channel using an old closing transaction.

Unfortunately, none of the above involves the creator of the software earning any kind of income.

Yea, I wouldn't put larger amounts of money on any other mobile wallet either. I was also shocked on how seamless it is! It's so underrated in my opinion. Unfortunately they don't have an iOS app yet(which a lot of people use). Are you personally fine with recommending this to people as a hot wallet? Because I think I do.

This topic deserves a bump I've been using Phoenix Wallet a bit more lately, and I'm quite happy with how well-connected it is. I get more failed payments on BlueWallet than on Phoenix Wallet now, and Phoenix charges less fees. I paid around 0.01% fee on a 80,000 sat payment from Phoenix Wallet, while this would be a minimum of 0.3% on BlueWallet.

BlueWallet doesn't charge anything for on-chain deposits, Phoenix charges 0.1%. But that amount is even lower than the minimum BlueWallet charges to send funds out using LN, so Phoenix is cheaper in the end.
I wonder how they'll turn a profit though: 0.1% of a small deposit isn't even enough to cover the fees to open a channel, and each new on-chain deposit creates a new channel.

I was also happily surprised that I can use funds from multiple channels to make one payment that's larger than any individual channel could afford. I have no idea how they arrange that internally, but it works!

I hope so, that sounds good! Either way, I like it

This is new: after receiving an on-chain transaction on Phoenix Wallet, it shows a popup:
Clicking the link shows that "channel opening/closing can be slow to confirm."

Meanwhile, Phoenix doesn't show a channel being opened, it shortly showed a new channel as "closed", but that one disappeared. On-chain I can see my transaction is split up into several other transactions already, each with 12 sat/vbyte fee. This was the largest deposit I've sent into LN so far, and channel opening is custodial. I don't know if a channel was opened for me, but if it's with 12 sat/vbyte, it's going to take a while.
I'm slightly disappointed Phoenix wallet didn't show this when I created the deposit address, or just increased their fee for opening a channel.

ACINQ has been around for years. It's much more likely they try to grow and earn billions from an IPO in the future.
Opening a new LN channel is custodial in Phoenix Wallet. That means you have to wait for it to open before doing anything else.

Update: I have an open channel! It was opened (with 13 sat/vbyte) a few hours after my deposit confirmed, and a couple hours later the channel and balance became available to me. Here's the interesting part: The on-chain transaction opening the channel isn't confirmed yet! As far as I know, that's not even possible
So, and I'm slightly speculating here, this would mean ACINQ accepts LN-funds coming out of a LN-channel that's not confirmed on-chain yet. Because they're the ones who opened the channel, they can be sure it's not going to be double spent at some point and will confirm eventually. And I also expect their own hub to have confirmed channels with third parties, so third parties aren't dealing with an unconfirmed channel. So far so good, I am quite happy I don't have to wait (weeks?) for this transaction to confirm. But I'm not sure if this means the channel is now more or less custodial: if I try to close the channel, the opening transaction still has to confirm.

Update (6 days later): the transaction that opened my LN channel got confirmed. All this time I've been using Phoenix Wallet without problems.

Yep! I don't think there's risk in it for them though, they own the channel opening transaction.

True. But the risk is for the user: in a way the current channel is still custodial. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt though: it works just fine!