Flutter.

Where Flutter fits on a long engagement.

Drawing its own widgets is Flutter's defining decision and the source of both its strengths. Pixel-identical output across platforms, and a strong brand-led design system, are far easier here than with any framework that adapts to native controls. Flutter is at its best where the client wants their design, not the platform's.

The same decision creates the costs. The app does not inherit platform conventions or accessibility behaviour for free, new OS features need plugin support before they are reachable, and anything genuinely platform-specific means writing native code on both sides anyway. Bundle size is also meaningfully larger than a native equivalent.

What an assigned team does with Flutter.

Flutter's economics only work if the product genuinely wants one interface on both platforms. Where the requirement is really two native-feeling apps, a single codebase becomes a constraint that is argued with on every screen rather than a saving.

That is a scoping judgement rather than a preference, and getting it wrong is expensive in both directions. How we assess it before anything is signed is described in how an assignment runs.

What we use Flutter for.

• One design system on both platforms Brand-led interfaces that should look identical everywhere, which is what the rendering model is for.
• Reaching two stores with one team A single codebase where maintaining two native applications is not justified by the product.
• Adding a platform channel where needed Native code on both sides for the genuinely platform-specific parts, without abandoning the shared codebase.

How Flutter capacity is assigned.

Flutter capacity is assigned inside mobile development under outsource software development services, with the cross-platform decision revisited at scoping rather than assumed.