Web & Mobile App Development

Cross-platform React Native is the right default for B2B products where feature parity matters more than platform-specific polish, and it typically cuts mobile build cost by 35 to 45 percent. We recommend native when the product depends on heavy graphics, background hardware access, or platform APIs that lack stable bridges.

Yes. We can take Figma files and implement them faithfully, or run design ourselves. When your team owns design, we ask for a token-level handoff so the coded design system stays in sync rather than drifting after the first release.

Performance budgets run inside CI, so a pull request that pushes LCP past 2.5 seconds or introduces layout shift fails before merge. We also wire real-user monitoring at launch, because lab scores and field data diverge once real devices and networks are involved.

Most clients move onto a monthly engineering retainer covering feature work, dependency upgrades, OS-version compatibility, and store resubmissions. It is optional — the handover is designed so an in-house team can take over without us.

It depends on whether you genuinely need the device. Background execution, offline operation, hardware sensors or reliable push notifications justify an app. Where none apply, a responsive web product avoids app stores, review cycles and a permanent maintenance obligation entirely, and is usually the cheaper and faster route.

A focused first release typically runs three to five months including store submission. Cross-platform halves the effort against two native codebases for most business applications. Build store submission into the schedule early rather than treating it as an administrative step, since privacy declarations and permission justifications are the most common cause of rejection.

They measure what users feel: how long until main content appears, how quickly the page responds to input, and how much it moves while loading. The ranking effect is modest, but the underlying experience is not. Most problems trace to an unoptimised hero image, excessive JavaScript, or content inserted without reserved space.

Usually yes, and incremental replacement beats a rewrite in almost every case. An existing system encodes years of undocumented corrections, and a rewrite rediscovers them slowly. Moving one route or feature at a time behind a routing layer lets the old system shrink while the business keeps running.

As an engineering requirement from the start rather than an audit before launch. Semantic elements, a heading hierarchy that descends in order, labelled form inputs and visible focus states are free during construction and tedious to retrofit. Most failures originate in design decisions, which is where we check them first.

Yes, and for anything used outside an office it is a requirement rather than an enhancement. The pattern is optimistic local writes with a queue that drains on reconnection, explicit synchronisation state so users know what is saved, and conflict handling decided deliberately rather than by whichever write arrived last.