Powstania Warszawskiego 15
31-539 Kraków
Apps Value is a mobile development team in Krakow, Poland, building complete iOS and Android products for companies in the United States and Europe. End to end means one team owns the whole chain: product discovery, UX and UI design, Flutter or React Native development, backend and integrations, QA, App Store and Google Play release, and the work that follows launch. You talk directly to the people building the app, and the project closes with a signed acceptance protocol rather than a handover email.
End to end development suits companies that already know what the product has to do: businesses moving a working process into an app, teams with a defined first version to release, and owners of an app a previous supplier left unfinished. It is the wrong fit when you only need extra developers, or when the business model is still open.
Full product development is a serious commitment of budget and attention. It is worth naming the cases where a smaller engagement will serve you better.
Your business already runs on spreadsheets, phone calls or paper. The rules are known, the users are known, and the value of moving that into a mobile product is measurable. This is the least risky kind of project and the one that ships closest to plan.
You know what the product does and who pays for it, and you need a real release rather than a prototype. We scope the first version tightly, fix the price against that scope, and ship to both stores.
The codebase exists but progress stopped. We audit what is there, tell you honestly whether it is worth continuing, and take over release management, fixes and further development.
If you have a product owner, a designer and a delivery process already, you do not need a full build. You need people. That is a different engagement and we handle it on hire Flutter developers and hire React Native developers.
If the business model is still open, building software is the most expensive way to find out. Start with a scoping engagement instead, see the discovery workshop, or read how we approach first versions.
You should receive a product brief, a clickable prototype, a fixed scope list, written architecture decisions, an automated build pipeline, a test plan, a release checklist, handover documentation and a signed acceptance protocol. Every one of those is a document or artifact you can open, review and keep, not a status update.
Development contracts fail on vagueness more often than on technology. Everything below is a real artifact you can open, review and keep, and every one of them is listed in the contract before work starts.
Ownership is not conditional. The source code, the design files, the store listings and the accounts are yours from the beginning, held in your organization, not in ours.
A full build runs through eight stages: discovery, product scope, UX and UI design, technical setup, delivery sprints, QA, store release and post launch. Each stage has one owner, one written output and a condition that has to be met before it closes. Typical time from approved scope to a published app is eight to twelve weeks.
A stage is closed when its criterion is met, not when the calendar says so. That is what keeps a fixed price honest for both sides.
In practice the delays come from outside the code: developer accounts that are not configured in time, store review questioning the payment model, missing access to third party services, and requirements that only appear once real users test the app. Technical problems are rarely what pushes a release date.
None of these are hypothetical. They come from apps we shipped, and they are the reason our process front loads accounts, access and scope instead of leaving them until release week.
Store and service accounts are set up during technical setup rather than in release week, which removes the most common cause of a slipped launch date.
The scope list names what is excluded, so a change request becomes a decision with a price rather than an argument about what was implied.
Your own team runs final tests in real conditions while there is still time to react to what they find, because that is when the requirements that were never written down finally appear.
On larger contracts the software carries a one year warranty. Anything agreed inside the fixed scope that does not work is our responsibility to fix, not a change request.
A field service company needed technicians to record working time on real jobs instead of reconstructing it later from memory and paper. The problem was not a missing feature. It was that the office had no reliable picture of where hours were going, which made both invoicing and planning guesswork.
We ran discovery with the people doing the work, scoped a first version around the job and time model, designed the flows for one handed use on a phone in the field, then built and released for iOS and Android from a single codebase. The office side got the reporting it needed to close the loop.
The requirement that shaped the product most was not in the original assumptions. The timer had to keep counting when a technician locks the screen, and when they place a call from inside the app itself. That only became visible once the app was used on real jobs, which is exactly why we plan for a round of real conditions testing before rollout rather than after it.
Read the full story on the TimeFix case study, or see a two sided marketplace we built end to end in the Loopy Jobs case study.
Fixed price is the honest model when the scope is genuinely defined, because the scope list is what protects both sides. Time and materials fits products still finding their shape, where priorities change between sprints. When the scope cannot be described without guessing, a short paid scoping engagement comes first.
Fixed price is only honest when the scope is genuinely defined.
If we cannot describe what is being built without guessing, a fixed price protects neither side. Either you overpay for our risk buffer, or we cut corners to stay inside it.
Time and materials is the honest model for products that are still finding their shape, where priorities change between sprints and that change is the point rather than a problem.
We tell you which one your project belongs in during scoping, before any contract. Figures and package shapes live on the pricing page, and the reasoning behind the two models is in our guide to fixed price app development.
Flutter is our default when the interface carries the experience and both platforms have to look and behave the same. React Native fits teams with JavaScript engineers, products sharing logic with a web app, or an existing React Native codebase to take over. Both give you iOS and Android from one shared codebase.
We are not neutral about this. For the products our clients build, a single cross platform codebase means one team, one release cycle, and one set of business rules to keep correct rather than two.
Our default for products where the interface carries the experience and consistency between iOS and Android matters. We use BLoC and Riverpod for state. More on Flutter app development.
The right choice when you have JavaScript engineers, a web product to share logic with, or an existing React Native app to take over. More on React Native development.
NestJS, Supabase and PostgreSQL for the server side, AWS or Google Cloud for hosting, Codemagic for builds and store distribution.
One team writes the business rules once, and both stores receive the same verified build.
Apps Value is a mobile app development company based in Krakow, Poland, working with clients in the United States and Europe. We build iOS and Android products in Flutter and React Native, run projects end to end from discovery to store release, and work mostly on fixed scope contracts.
Delivery closes with a signed acceptance protocol. It lists what was agreed, what was delivered and what was verified, so there is no ambiguity about whether the contract is complete. On larger contracts the one year warranty period starts from that signature.
You do, from the start. The repository, the design files and the App Store and Google Play accounts are yours. We work inside your accounts rather than publishing under ours, which means nothing has to be migrated if you ever change supplier.
The scope list makes the change visible. We estimate it, you decide whether it goes into this release or the next one, and it is added in writing. What we do not do is absorb changes silently and then explain a delay later.
The commitment is availability rather than a fixed number of hours. Discovery and design need real attention from you, delivery sprints need someone reachable who can answer a question the same day, and the single most useful thing you can provide is one person on your side who is empowered to decide.
Yes, and it is a significant part of what we do. We start with a codebase audit and give you an honest answer on whether continuing is cheaper than rebuilding. Sometimes it is not, and we say so.
Store policies, operating system versions and your own business will all move. We handle release management, crash monitoring, fixes and further iterations. Details on mobile app maintenance and support.
The team is in Krakow, Poland, working on Central European time, which overlaps the full European working day and the American morning. Most of our clients are in the United States and Western Europe and we run projects in English end to end.
For companies in the United States and Western Europe it usually is, for two reasons that are not only price. Polish engineering teams work in the same or a close time zone to Europe and overlap the American morning, and the market has a deep pool of mobile engineers. The trade off to check is whether the supplier runs the whole product process or only writes code to your specification.
Every published app carries a running cost even when nothing new is being built: store developer accounts, backend hosting, and the updates that operating system and store policy changes force on you at least once a year. What that adds up to depends on your backend and your user base, and we break it down on the maintenance page.
Yes, and it is normal for us. Several of the products we have built are under NDA, which is why some of our work is described by industry and scope rather than by name. Send yours or use ours, either way it can be signed before the first detailed conversation.
Eight to twelve weeks from approved scope to a published app is the normal range for a defined first version. Larger operational systems with integrations run longer. The timeline is given with its conditions attached, because the largest variable is usually how fast decisions and access arrive from your side.
Bring whatever you have, a document, a rough idea or an app that stalled. I will tell you what a realistic scope looks like, where the risks sit, and whether we are the right team for it.
Book an intro call