<- Technologies
/
Kotlin Development
Most mobile apps don't need native development. React Native covers the requirements, ships faster, and costs less to maintain. We say this as an agency that would make more money if we recommended Kotlin for everything.
But some apps genuinely need native. Performance-critical experiences where milliseconds matter. Deep hardware integration — camera pipelines, sensors, background processing that cross-platform can't touch. Apps where "feels native" isn't marketing language but a real, measurable requirement.
WAYF builds both. When we recommend Kotlin for native Android, it's because we've evaluated the alternatives and concluded native is worth the tradeoffs.
What Native Android Work Looks Like With Us
Android components for apps that started cross-platform and hit limits. Standalone native apps where React Native's abstraction would cost more than it saves. SDKs and libraries meant for other developers to consume. Enterprise applications where IT policies mandated native code.
The common thread: projects where Kotlin isn't a preference or a default, but a deliberate choice after weighing the alternatives.
What we build less of: apps that could ship fine with React Native. If cross-platform covers your needs — and it usually does — we'll say so. Native development costs more, takes longer, and creates a separate codebase to maintain. We recommend it when the tradeoffs are justified.
What We See Go Wrong
Teams arrive mid-project more often than we'd like. The patterns repeat.
The unnecessary native decision. Someone assumed "native means quality" without testing whether React Native would have worked. Now there are two codebases, two release cycles, features shipping weeks apart per platform, and a maintenance burden that compounds forever.
Kotlin that's actually Java. The code compiles, but it's verbose, ceremony-heavy, fighting the language instead of using it. Coroutines structured like callbacks. Null safety treated as an obstacle. Data classes ignored. The result is harder to maintain than Java would have been.
Compose migrations that doubled the timeline. Jetpack Compose is the future of Android UI. That doesn't mean rewriting a working Views codebase mid-project makes sense. We've helped teams recover from these rewrites.
The fragmentation surprise. Testing on two Pixel phones and assuming coverage. Then discovering Samsung handles permissions differently, older Android versions need workarounds, and "works on my device" isn't a release criterion.
We're not here to judge how you got here. We stabilize what exists, fill gaps, and help whoever's already on the project become more effective.
How We Think About The Technical Work
Jetpack Compose is Our Default for New UI
We believe in it, we're productive in it, and we think the investment pays off. But Views are fine when they're already working. Incremental migration often beats rewrite.
Dependency Injection is Usually Hilt
It's Google's recommended approach, it works, and new developers can onboard without learning a custom system. Koin when Hilt is overkill. Manual DI for small projects where frameworks add complexity.
Testing is Enough to Deploy with Confidence
UI tests for critical paths, unit tests for logic, integration tests where boundaries matter. We optimize for catching bugs, not coverage percentages.
How We Work
Two modes.
If you have a team and a process, we integrate. Your tools, your rituals, your preferences. We adapt and contribute from day one — though we'll point out where things could be sharper.
If you need leadership, we lead. Two-week sprints. Documented decisions. Weekly syncs. Monthly reviews that look forward. We surface problems before they're expensive: scope creep, timeline drift, architectural choices that will hurt later.
What stays constant: direct communication. If Kotlin is wrong for your project, we say so early. If a feature isn't worth the complexity, same. We'd rather have a hard conversation in week two than a failed project in month six.
The Clients Who Get The Most From Us
They care about what they're building. A product, not just a project.
They want pushback. When we think native isn't justified, or a timeline is unrealistic, or a decision will cause problems — they want to hear it.
They're open to being wrong about Kotlin. Some of our best engagements started with "we need native Android" and ended with a React Native app that shipped faster and cost less.
They communicate directly and expect the same.
Who We're Not For
If lowest hourly rate is the deciding factor, we won't win that comparison.
If you want execution without questions — a team that builds the spec without asking why — we're a poor fit. We push back. For some clients, that's the point. For others, it's friction.
If native Android is already decided and you don't want that revisited, a pure Android shop might serve you better. Our value is knowing when Kotlin is right and when it isn't. If the decision is made, you're paying for judgment you won't use.



