The usual pattern: one platform ships, the other follows a year later built by different people, and the two slowly diverge until they are different applications with the same name.

We build them together.

Together, not identical

Shared: product decisions, data models, API contracts, business rules, release cadence. A rule change lands on both platforms the same week.

Not shared: navigation, gestures, typography, system integrations. An iOS app that ignores platform conventions to match its Android sibling feels wrong, and reviewers notice.

How we build

Swift and SwiftUI, dropping to UIKit where SwiftUI still has rough edges — which it still does in places. Deployment target set from your actual user data. Platform integrations done properly: widgets, Shortcuts, share extensions, notifications.

App Store review

Stricter and less predictable than Google's, but the common rejections are known enough to design around — privacy manifests and required-reason API declarations, App Tracking Transparency, data disclosures matching actual behaviour, sufficient functionality, and account deletion where accounts exist. We build with these in mind rather than retrofitting after a rejection.

Being straight

Our published catalogue is Android. iOS versions are in progress and we take on client iOS work — but if you want a studio whose entire public portfolio is iOS, we are not that, and you should know before engaging us.

What we do bring is the parallel-platform discipline, which is the thing that usually goes wrong when a product lives on both.

Keeping two platforms honest

Parity is a discipline, not an event. The mechanism that keeps it working is unglamorous: one written source of truth for product behaviour, and API contracts agreed before either client is built against them.

When a rule changes — a validation, a pricing tier, an edge case in how something is counted — it changes in that document first, then in both clients. Without it, the two apps drift through a hundred small undocumented decisions until nobody can say which one is correct.

Release cadence stays aligned too. Shipping iOS three weeks behind Android sounds harmless and reliably produces support tickets from users who read a feature announcement that does not apply to them yet.

Testing and TestFlight

Unit tests for logic, UI tests for the flows that would be expensive to break, and real-device testing for everything involving the camera, notifications, background modes or the keyboard — all of which behave differently on device than in the simulator.

Older hardware is worth testing on deliberately. An app that feels fine on a current iPhone can feel sluggish on a model several years old, and a meaningful share of users are on those.

TestFlight for stakeholder review, with builds that go out regularly rather than accumulating into one large reveal. Review notes written properly so testers know what changed and what to look at.

Privacy, and what Apple now requires

Two requirements catch teams out because they are recent and enforced at submission.

Privacy manifests must declare the data an app collects and the reason for using certain APIs — file timestamps, disk space, user defaults among them — and the declarations must match actual behaviour. Third-party SDKs need their own manifests, which means an outdated dependency can block your release rather than just aging quietly.

App Tracking Transparency applies if the app tracks users across other companies' apps or websites. If it does not, saying so cleanly is better than requesting a permission you do not need and watching the acceptance rate.

Account deletion must be available in-app wherever accounts exist. Offering it only by email is a rejection.

Platform integrations worth having

The things that make an app feel native rather than ported: widgets that show something genuinely useful at a glance, Shortcuts and App Intents so the app is reachable from Siri and the Shortcuts app, share extensions where sharing into the app makes sense, and notifications that are timely rather than frequent.

None of these are mandatory. Each is worth doing properly or not at all — a widget that shows stale data is worse than no widget.

Being straight, again

Our published catalogue is Android; iOS versions are in progress. We take on client iOS work and we build it properly, but we are not going to claim a portfolio we do not have.

What we bring is the parallel-platform discipline — the part that usually goes wrong when a product has to live on both — and a team that has shipped and supported mobile software in the field rather than only delivered it.