When one codebase for iOS and Android is the right call, when native genuinely wins, and why the choice matters less than people argue.
·4 min read
This argument runs hot among developers and matters far less than it seems from
the outside. For most small business apps, either approach produces something
your users cannot tell apart, and the decision should be made on cost and
staffing rather than on principle.
Here is the version without the tribalism.
What the choice actually is
Native means writing the app twice: once in Swift for iOS, once in Kotlin
for Android. Two codebases, two skill sets, every feature built twice.
Cross-platform means one codebase producing both apps. React Native and
Flutter are the two that matter. The interface is described once and rendered on
both platforms.
The old objection was that cross-platform apps felt wrong: slow, janky, visibly
not native. That was a fair criticism a decade ago and is mostly no longer true
for the kind of app a small business builds. Both approaches now produce apps
that feel fine.
Cross-platform, for most small businesses
The reason is not technical elegance. It is that one codebase means one set of
changes, one bug fixed once, and one developer able to hold the whole thing in
their head.
For a business with an internal app used by twenty staff, that is decisive. The
alternative is paying twice for every change forever, or shipping features to
iOS and letting Android fall behind, which is how you end up with half your team
on a worse tool.
It also matters for handover. Finding one person who can maintain a React Native
app is easier and cheaper than finding two specialists, and small businesses
change suppliers.
When native genuinely wins
Not often, but the cases are real:
Heavy sustained hardware use. Continuous video processing, augmented
reality, custom camera pipelines, tight Bluetooth work with specific devices.
The app is the product and its performance is the differentiator. If you
are a software company competing on feel, build native.
You need a brand-new platform feature on day one. Cross-platform
frameworks lag OS releases by weeks or months.
You already employ native developers. The best technology is frequently
the one your people already know, and this is a perfectly respectable reason.
If none of those apply, and for most trades, clinics, charities and service
businesses none do, cross-platform is the pragmatic answer.
The thing that actually determines the cost
It is not the framework. It is how much of the app needs to work offline.
An app that reads and writes to a server whenever you tap is straightforward on
any technology. An app that has to hold a day’s work on the device, let someone
edit it in a basement with no signal, and reconcile it later when two people
changed the same record is a genuinely hard piece of software regardless of
what it is written in.
Offline sync is where mobile projects overrun. If your requirement includes it,
scope that specifically and early, rather than treating it as a checkbox. And if
it does not, say so plainly, because a lot of apps get built offline-capable for
a scenario that never happens.
What does not matter
App size. Nobody has abandoned an install over a few extra megabytes.
Framework popularity arguments. Both major cross-platform options are backed
by large companies and used at scale. Either is a defensible choice in 2026.
Startup time, at the margins. The difference between the approaches is
measured in fractions of a second and swamped by whatever your app does on
launch.
The question to actually ask a developer
Not “native or cross-platform.” Ask: what happens when this needs a change in
two years, and who will do it?
That question exposes the real cost. A native pair maintained by one contractor
who left is a much worse position than a single cross-platform codebase any
competent mobile developer can pick up. Ongoing ownership is the expensive part
of an app, as what it costs to keep an app in the
stores sets out.
And before any of this
Confirm you need an app. This entire decision is downstream of a question that
is answered “no” more often than people expect, and
the four tests take five
minutes to apply.
One email when something new goes up, roughly twice a month. Plain
writing on what software costs and what is worth building. No sequences,
no sales calls, and one click to leave.
Tell us what the problem is. You will get an honest read on whether it is worth building, what it would take, and roughly what it would cost. No pitch deck, no pressure.
Six things: marketing websites, web applications, internal tools, AI systems, AI agents and MCP servers, and database work. Most projects touch two or three of them rather than sitting neatly in one.
Yes. Marketing sites, landing pages and content platforms, built on modern static tooling rather than page builders. They load in under a second and have the technical SEO groundwork done properly.
Yes. Customer portals, dashboards, booking systems and SaaS products. The kind where users log in, data persists and money changes hands, so it has to be right.
Software your staff use rather than your customers. A dashboard pulling numbers from systems that do not talk to each other, a job tracker matching how you actually work, or a scheduled job replacing a report someone assembles by hand every Monday.
Yes, and we will tell you when it is the wrong tool. Retrieval over your own documents, support assistants, document extraction and classification, all built with evaluation and guardrails from the start.
MCP is the standard that lets AI assistants reach your real systems instead of guessing. We build MCP servers that expose your data and tools to Claude and other clients, and agents that carry out multi-step work with permissions and audit trails.
Yes. Schema design, query performance work, migrations between systems, ETL pipelines and reporting layers. Usually called in when the database has quietly become the bottleneck, or the risk.
Not native iOS or Android apps. We build web applications that work properly on phones, which covers most of what businesses actually need. If you need a true native app, we will say so rather than talk you into a compromise.
Related
We design and build the sites and applications we make. We do not do standalone brand identity, logo design or print work. If you already have brand guidelines we will follow them.
Related
Often, yes. The first step is a short paid audit of the existing code and infrastructure, so you get an honest assessment of what is salvageable and what it would cost either way before committing to anything.
Related
Yes, if you want it. You can also take the project and run it yourself using the documentation provided. Both are genuine options and there is no pressure toward a retainer you do not need.
Related
A marketing site typically lands between $3,000 and $12,000 depending on page count and complexity. You get a written fixed price before any work begins, so the number you approve is the number you pay.
Applications and internal tools are scoped individually and most start around $15,000. Once users log in and data persists, you are buying software rather than a website, and it is priced like software.
Related
A single automation or integration is usually $2,000 to $6,000. A proper internal application with its own database and user roles runs $6,000 to $20,000. Anything your operations depend on goes up from there.
Fixed price wherever the scope can be fixed. That means we absorb the overrun rather than you, and it is usually worth the small premium on a first project together. If something changes mid-build you hear about it before the work happens, not on the invoice.
Related
A static marketing site is commonly free to host and stays free at traffic levels most local businesses never reach. A well-built internal tool usually runs $10 to $50 a month. Budget 15 to 20 percent of the build cost annually for maintenance.
Related
Copywriting, photography, ongoing SEO work and third-party subscriptions are the four things most commonly assumed by the client and excluded by the quote. Ours states what is and is not covered explicitly.
Related
Yes, typically a portion up front with the remainder on delivery, or split across milestones for larger projects. The exact split is agreed in the written proposal before work starts.
Related
Rarely page count. Integration complexity, how much the process changes mid-build, and how clean your starting data is. Messy historical data is the single most common reason projects overrun.
Related
Usually. Tell us the number and we will tell you honestly what fits inside it and what does not. That is a more useful conversation than pretending everything fits.
Related
Yes. Scoping conversations and written proposals cost nothing and carry no obligation. We will also provide a written quote for a grant application without charging for it.
Related
Yes, and they are meaningful. Registered charities, non-profits and small local businesses get reduced rates on every service, because a tight budget should not be the reason an organisation is stuck with software that does not work.
Registered charities and the volunteer-run groups that support them, non-profits and community organisations, and small owner-operated businesses including new ventures still finding their feet.
Related
There is no application and no paperwork. Mention it in your first message and the reduced rate is built into the quote you receive.
It depends on the project and the organisation, and you are told exactly what it is before committing to anything. We do not publish a single percentage because it would be either misleading or useless.
Related
Often, yes, and they are widely underused. Google for Nonprofits, TechSoup Canada, community foundations and your existing funders are all worth approaching. We wrote a guide to what is actually available.
If you are small and owner-operated, yes. Ask when you get in touch and we will tell you straight rather than making you guess.
Related
Four stages. Scope: a conversation about the problem, not the tech. Plan: a written proposal with price and timeline. Build: short cycles with something working at the end of each one. Ship and support: deploy, hand over documented code you own outright.
A straightforward marketing site takes two to four weeks from kickoff. Applications and internal tools usually run six to twelve weeks, delivered in cycles so you see something working every week rather than waiting until the end.
Related
Completely. Code lives in your repositories, hosting and domains are registered in your name, and everything is documented at handover. There is no licence to keep paying and no lock-in forcing you to stay.
Related
You keep everything, because it was always in your accounts. Documentation and a clean handover are part of the work rather than an extra, precisely so that another developer can pick it up.
Related
Most of it is at the start, agreeing what gets built. After that, expect a short check-in each cycle to look at progress. The most common cause of delay is waiting on content from the client side, so having copy and images ready helps more than anything else.
Related
Yes, and it is normal. You hear the cost and timeline effect before the work happens, so a change is a decision you make rather than a surprise on the invoice.
Related
Yes. Content is set up so you can change text and images without a developer in the loop, using either a CMS or markdown depending on what suits your team.
Related
Yes, routinely. Send yours over or ask and we will provide one.
Related
Often. Being brought in for a specific piece, or to work alongside an in-house team, is common and works fine as long as the boundaries are clear up front.
Related
A description of the problem. Not a specification, not a wireframe, just what is going wrong or what you are trying to do. Everything else comes out of the scoping conversation.
Astro and Next.js for sites and applications, React and TypeScript on the front end, Node.js and Python on the back, PostgreSQL and MongoDB for data, and Netlify or Vercel for hosting. Chosen per project rather than by habit.
Related
Only when it is genuinely the right answer, which is less often than it is used. For most marketing sites a static build is faster, safer and cheaper to run. For a large store or complex memberships, WordPress earns its place.
Wherever you need it. AWS and Google Cloud both have Canadian regions in Montreal and Toronto, and hosting in Canada is straightforward and usually costs nothing extra. If your customers ask where their data lives, that is worth having a clear answer to.
Related
Usually not. PIPEDA does not require personal data to be stored in Canada, provided you are transparent and the data receives comparable protection. Rules that do mandate it are mostly provincial public-sector rules. Health data and government contracts are stricter, so check those specifically.
Yes. Sites are built to WCAG 2.1 AA, which covers keyboard navigation, screen readers, colour contrast and focus states. It is part of the build rather than a paid extra.
Related
Sub-second loads and 95 or better on Lighthouse are the target, and normally the result. Static output with no render-blocking JavaScript is most of how that is achieved.
Related
The technical groundwork, yes: structured data, sitemaps, clean semantics, fast pages and unique metadata per page. Ongoing content and link building is a different discipline and we will say so rather than sell it.
Related
A static site has no database to breach, no admin login to brute force and no plugins running server-side code, which removes most of the attack surface. Where an application does need those, authentication and permissions are built to hold up.
Related
Usually. If your CRM, accounting package or booking system has an API or webhooks, it can be connected. Integration between systems you already pay for is one of the highest-value things to automate.
Related
Backups you have actually tested, not just configured. Restoring from a backup nobody has ever tried is a plan with an unknown failure rate.
Related
Often not, and we will say so. It is worth it when the task involves unstructured language, the rules are fuzzy, you can tell right from wrong, and a wrong answer is survivable. Fail any of those and something simpler is the better build.
Answering questions over your own documents, extracting structure from messy input like invoices and forms, triaging and routing incoming work, and generating first drafts a human then edits. Those four cover most of the real value.
Related
Chatbots on the front page, which almost nobody wants. Anything needing exact numbers, because models are not calculators. And automating a process nobody has written down, which just scales the confusion.
Related
Less than most people expect. A well-built retrieval system for a small business commonly runs in the tens of dollars a month. Costs balloon from stuffing whole documents into every request and using the largest model for tasks a smaller one handles.
Related
It can, which is why systems are built to answer from your data with sources attached rather than from memory. Anything that matters gets a human in the loop, and evaluation is built in from the start so you know when it works.
Related
A system that takes multiple steps toward a goal without being prompted at each one. Impressive in demos, frequently disappointing in production, and the gap is engineering rather than model quality.
Worth it when your team already uses an AI assistant daily, the information lives in a system with an API, and people ask the same questions repeatedly. Start with one read-only server answering a single question, which takes days and cannot break anything.
Related
It is, when scoped properly. Expose the narrowest set of capabilities that answers the real questions, separate read from write, put approval gates on anything destructive, log every call, and give it its own credentials rather than a shared admin account.
Related
Call, email, or use the contact form. The form asks a few questions up front so the first reply can be useful rather than a request for more information.
Within one business day, usually sooner. If it is urgent, calling is faster than the form.
Related
Alberta, Canada. Work happens remotely with clients across Canada and the United States, over email, video calls and shared preview links.
Related
Regularly. Location has never been a constraint on this kind of work. Being Canadian helps with timezone overlap, invoicing in Canadian dollars and familiarity with the privacy rules, but it is not the deciding factor.
Related
That is the preferred starting point. No pitch deck, no pressure, and no obligation. You will get an honest read on whether the thing is worth building at all.
Related
That is the normal case and completely fine. Describe what is going wrong or what takes too long, and working out the shape of the solution is part of the job.
