A mobile app is the least forgiving thing most businesses build. It ships through a review process, it runs on hardware you do not control, and a bad release is visible in public reviews for as long as the app exists. So the emphasis here is on the parts that decide whether a launch goes well: a focused first version, an architecture that survives version two, and testing on real devices before anyone else sees it. Native iOS in SwiftUI, or cross-platform when both platforms genuinely need to ship together.
Scope runs from a focused single-purpose app to a product with accounts, sync and a backend behind it. The discipline is the same either way.
Built with the platform rather than against it: real navigation patterns, dark mode, Dynamic Type, VoiceOver, haptics and gestures that behave the way iOS users already expect. An app that feels borrowed from another platform gets treated that way in reviews.
When iOS and Android have to launch together and the interface is largely shared, a cross-platform build is the cheaper honest answer. When the app leans on platform capability, native wins. You get the recommendation with the reasoning, not a default.
Views stay thin, logic sits in view models, and data access is isolated behind its own layer. Not architecture for its own sake — it is what makes the second feature cheap instead of a rewrite, and what makes the logic testable at all.
Accounts, APIs, databases, push notifications, file storage and sync — designed together with the app rather than bolted on, so the same engineer owns both halves of the contract between them.
Simulators hide the problems that matter: slow networks, low storage, permission denials, interruptions mid-task, older hardware. Testing happens on actual devices under actual conditions.
Provisioning, certificates, App Store Connect, privacy declarations, screenshots and metadata, plus dealing with review feedback. This is where first-time submissions usually stall for weeks.
The order is deliberate: decide what version one is, build it in visible slices, test it properly, then ship it.
The hardest and most valuable step. What the app must do, what it explicitly will not do yet, and who it is for — then a written scope, delivery date and fixed price. Most failed apps failed here by trying to launch with everything.
Working builds you can install on your own phone as the app comes together, rather than a demo at the end. Feedback on a real device in your hand is worth more than feedback on a design file.
Edge cases, offline behaviour, permissions, interruptions, older hardware and accessibility, with automated coverage over the logic layers. Bugs get found here rather than in your reviews.
Submission and review handled end to end, then the repository, signing assets and App Store Connect access transferred to you, with written notes on how to build and ship it again.
There is no public App Store case study yet — mobile is the newest of these services, and inventing proof for it would be worse than saying so. What can be verified is the engineering discipline the work rests on, which is the same discipline across every project on this site.
The IFTA agent is production software a paying client depends on every quarter: 429 automated tests, and a backtest that reproduces a real Kentucky state filing to the penny. That is the standard of correctness applied to anything with money or compliance in it.
DM Express is a shipped client product tested with named techniques — equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, decision tables, state-transition testing — and tuned specifically for iPhone and accessibility.
Liora Studio is a full production application with authentication, a database, file uploads, payments and a two-factor admin. Everything a mobile app needs behind it, already built and running.
Starting at
$7,500
MVP to production release
A focused first release starts at $7,500, quoted as a fixed price against a written scope. Apps needing a custom backend, accounts and sync sit higher, and you get the number before committing to anything. Post-launch changes are quoted per change or handled at $90/hour — no retainer.
Discuss an appIt depends on whether you need Android at launch and how much the app leans on platform capability. If iOS is the market and the experience matters, native SwiftUI gives the better result. If both platforms must ship together and the interface is largely shared, cross-platform is the cheaper honest answer. You will get a recommendation with reasoning rather than whichever is easier to build.
Not a public one yet — mobile is the newest of these services and there is no shipped case study to point at. That is worth knowing before you hire anyone. What is verifiable is the engineering behind it: production systems with real clients, 429 automated tests on the IFTA agent, a shipped client web product tested with named techniques, and a full application with auth, database, uploads and payments already running.
A focused first release is typically six to twelve weeks depending on whether it needs a backend, accounts and sync. Apple's review adds a few days to a couple of weeks at the end. The written scope fixes the delivery date before work begins.
Yes, and you should want it. It costs $99/year from Apple and it means the app is published under your name, with you in control of it. Setting it up and configuring App Store Connect is part of the project, but the account and the app belong to you, not to me.
Handling review feedback and resubmitting is part of the engagement, not an extra. Submissions are prepared to avoid the usual rejection reasons — privacy declarations, permission strings, incomplete metadata, sign-in requirements. What nobody can promise is approval itself, since that is Apple's decision.
Yes, and the architecture exists so that is cheap rather than a rewrite. Later work is quoted per change or at $90/hour. Because the repository and accounts are yours, you are equally free to take it to another developer — the code is written and documented with that in mind.
Interface design is part of the build, working from platform conventions rather than a blank canvas — which is usually what an app should do anyway. If you need a full brand identity or a designer-led visual concept, that is worth bringing a specialist in for, and the build will work to their designs.
Most projects touch more than one of these, and one engineer covering them means no hand-offs between the pieces.
Agents, RAG assistants and workflow automation, built with evaluations and guardrails.
Open pageCustom sites and web apps in Next.js and TypeScript, handed over complete with no monthly platform fee.
Open pageIndependent functional, regression and edge-case testing, with a written report your developers can act on.
Open pageDescribe the project and where it's stuck. You'll get an honest read on whether this is the right fit — including when the answer is that it isn't.