<- Technologies
/
React Native Development
One codebase. Two platforms. The same senior engineers who build your web applications.
React Native isn't a separate team at WAYF. It's the same engineers, the same standards, the same product thinking – applied to mobile. The mental model carries over. The quality does too.
What We Build
Cross-platform mobile applications. Consumer apps that need to feel native. Internal tools that need to ship fast. MVPs that test a market before committing to platform-specific development.
We've built greenfield apps from scratch and integrated React Native into existing native codebases. We've shipped to both app stores simultaneously and maintained apps through years of OS updates, library changes, and evolving user expectations. The scope changes; the standard doesn't.
What we build less of: apps that genuinely need native performance throughout—heavy 3D, complex animations, deep hardware integration. We'll tell you when React Native isn't the right choice. We'd rather lose the project than build something that fights the platform.
Why Us
How We Work
Two modes, depending on what you need.
Sometimes you have a team, a process, and a rhythm—you need specialists who can plug in and elevate what's already working. We do that. Your tools, your ceremonies, your preferences. We adapt, and we'll point out where things could be sharper—but the mode is integration, not takeover.
But often, especially with earlier-stage companies or new product initiatives, you need more than hands. You need someone to own the process end-to-end. Set the standard. Make the calls. Tell you what's working and what isn't.
When we lead, we actually lead. That means a clear rhythm: two-week sprints, weekly syncs, monthly reviews that look forward as much as back. Decisions documented in writing so you always know why something was built a certain way. We bring the tools—Linear for tracking, Slack for daily pulse, Notion or Confluence for documentation built to last—but more importantly, we bring the discipline to use them well.
We don't wait for you to ask the right questions. We surface risks before they become problems. We tell you when scope is creeping, when a feature isn't worth the effort, when the timeline is slipping and what to do about it. You get a team that operates like founders—accountable for outcomes, not just output.
What stays constant either way: direct communication, no surprises, and feedback that's honest even when it's uncomfortable. We'd rather have a hard conversation in week two than a failed project in month six.
What We See Go Wrong
The most common pattern: teams choose React Native because "we already know React," then underestimate how different mobile is. Navigation, gestures, performance constraints, app store review processes, platform-specific behaviors—the React knowledge helps, but mobile has its own complexity.
We also see the opposite: teams that over-engineer for native parity. Building custom native modules for everything, fighting the framework instead of working with it, ending up with a codebase that's harder to maintain than two native apps would have been.
Another pattern: the "we'll just share code with web" assumption. React Native and React share concepts, not components. Teams that expect to copy-paste their web app into mobile learn this painfully. The mental model transfers; the code mostly doesn't.
We're not here to judge how you got here. Sometimes the original decision was right and circumstances changed. Sometimes it was wrong but made sense at the time. We come in as partners—assess what exists, understand the constraints, figure out whether to fix, rebuild, or occasionally recommend a different approach entirely.
Technical Approach
Performance Requires Intention
React Native can be fast—but not automatically. We profile on real devices, not simulators. We understand the bridge, where it bottlenecks, and how the new architecture changes the equation. We use native modules when JavaScript genuinely can't keep up, not as a first resort.
State Management Stays Consistent with Our Web Approach
Simple apps get simple solutions. Complex apps get the architecture they need. We don't reach for heavy tooling out of habit, but we don't avoid it out of principle either.
Testing on Mobile is Different
Unit tests for logic, component tests for UI, but real confidence comes from testing on real devices across OS versions. We build testing into the workflow from the start, not as an afterthought.
TypeScript—Non-Negotiable for Production Work
The type system catches errors that would otherwise surface as crashes on users' devices. Strict mode. Proper typing for navigation, for native modules, for platform-specific code paths.
Who We Work Well With
Clients focused on reaching iOS and Android users efficiently—not on using React Native for its own sake.
Also: clients who aren't sure whether React Native is right for them. We help with that assessment. What does your app need to do? How native does it need to feel? What's your team's expertise? What's your maintenance capacity? Sometimes the answer is React Native. Sometimes it's native development. Sometimes it's a web app. We'll tell you what we actually think.
What both types have in common: direct communication, realistic expectations about cross-platform tradeoffs, and treating our team as partners rather than vendors executing a spec.
Who We're Not For
If you're comparing agencies on hourly rate alone, we'll lose that spreadsheet every time. What we won't lose is months of your roadmap to performance problems, platform rejections, and "it works on Android but not iPhone" surprises.
If you've decided React Native is the answer before asking what the question is—and you're not open to hearing otherwise—we're probably not the right fit. We've seen too many projects struggle because the technology choice was made for the wrong reasons.
If you need an app with heavy 3D graphics, complex real-time audio processing, or deep integration with platform-specific hardware—React Native might not be the right tool, and we'll tell you that. We'd rather recommend native development and lose the engagement than build something that fights the framework for its entire lifecycle.



