App in Expo or bare workflow
Chosen for a reason. Expo for fast iteration. Bare for native-module-heavy apps.
// react native development
React Native apps that ship.
Mobile work for teams who already speak React and need to ship on iOS and Android without staffing two native teams. Expo where it earns it, bare workflow when it doesn't.
// where teams get stuck
Your web team is also your mobile team. By accident.
- Expo updates breaking native deps every quarter.
- iOS-specific bugs that nobody on the team can reproduce.
- Push notifications still on a TODO from two roadmaps ago.
- App Store review feedback you're afraid to read.
// what's included
What ships.
Native modules where needed
Push, biometrics, deep linking, in-app purchases. Written, tested, documented.
Monorepo with web (if scope)
Shared design system, types, API client. The mobile and web teams stop drifting.
App Store + Play Store delivery
Listings, screenshots, review-team-ready. We've shipped through both.
OTA update strategy
Expo Updates configured. Rollback path documented. Crash reporting wired.
// how we work
Three phases. Built to last.
01 · Calibrate
Workflow choice. Written scope. App Store readiness checklist.
02 · Build
Weekly demo on real devices, not just simulators.
03 · Hand off
Submission to stores. Runbook for OTA updates. Support window starts.
// common questions
What teams ask before signing.
Expo for most apps — the dev velocity is real. Bare when you need custom native code that Expo's modules don't cover.
Both, normally. The cost difference is small once the app is structured right.
Scoped per project. v1 timing depends on the number of core flows and the depth of backend integration. We share the timeline in the written proposal after the discovery call.
Yes. Fixed-scope first, with a post-launch support window included. Optional ongoing care plans available after launch.
Murcia, Spain. Remote across Europe, the UK, and North America.